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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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; “a modification unit” in claim 1; “offline teaching device” in claim 9.
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. See at least [0058] wherein “a modification unit is implemented by, for example, a CPU or an FPGA.” See at least [0124] wherein “the offline teaching device 5 includes a communication unit 50, a processor 51, a memory 52, and an input and output unit 53.”
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Masaki (US 4380696 A).
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 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 storage unit configured to store a set position of the workpiece with a robot configured to perform the 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 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; (“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 by using the plurality of modified teaching programs. (“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)
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 calculates the actual measured position of the workpiece based on the three-dimensional shape data. (“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 to detect a feature point of the workpiece, and calculate the actual measured position of the workpiece based on the detected feature point. (“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 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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 4380696 A) in view of Kimoto (US 20130317646 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Kimoto teaches
wherein the modification unit determines whether positions of teaching points of the 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 modified teaching programs are not outside the operating range of the robot, the control unit controls the robot by using the 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 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,
Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Kimoto teaches
wherein if it is determined that the positions of the teaching points of the modified teaching programs are outside the operating range of the robot, the control unit returns 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 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 Wada (US 20230405850 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Wada teaches
wherein the feature point is a predetermined hole formed 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 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,
Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Wada teaches
wherein the feature point is a predetermined surface of the workpiece or a corner of the surface. (“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 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 communicably connected to the robot control device (“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 plurality of teaching programs used by the robot in the production based on the position displacement amount of the workpiece, and transmit the plurality of modified teaching programs to the robot control device, (“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 the robot control device controls the robot by using the plurality of modified teaching programs. (“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 Yamazaki teaches
and an offline teaching device communicably connected to the robot control device and constructing the workpiece and the robot in a virtual space, (“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])
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 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])
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 (filed 9/4/2024) of copending Application No. 18824110 in view of Masaki (US 4380696 A). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim
This Application’s Claim
18824110 Claims
1
A robot control device, comprising:
(Claim 1) An offline teaching device comprising:
1
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information related to a position of a workpiece produced by welding;
(Claim 1) wherein the processor is configured to: acquire, from an inspection robot that inspects a workpiece to be produced by welding, information on positions of the workpiece and a welding robot that executes the welding;
1
a storage unit configured to store a set position
(Claim 1) at least one memory storing a program; … a teaching point included in a welding teaching program used for the welding
1
a calculation unit configured to calculate a position displacement amount of the workpiece based on
(Claim 2) calculate a positional deviation amount of the welding robot and a positional deviation amount of the workpiece
1
a modification unit 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;
(Claim 2) correct the position of the welding robot and the position of the workpiece, and correct the welding teaching program based on the positional deviation amount of the welding robot and the positional deviation amount of the workpiece and correct the inspection teaching program based on the positional deviation amount of the workpiece.
Application 18824110 does not explicitly teach, but Masaki teaches
a storage unit configured to store a set position of the workpiece with a robot configured to perform the 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)
and a control unit configured to control the robot by using the plurality of modified teaching programs. (“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)
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 Application No. 18824110 to further include the teachings of Masaki with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate performing a taught welding path on successive workpieces accurately and accounting for deviations in workpiece position from the workpiece on which the weld path was initially taught. (See at least col. 2, line 49 through col. 3, line 51)
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 (filed 9/4/2024) of copending Application No. 18824110 in view of claim 4 of copending Application No. 18824110 and Masaki (US 4380696 A). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim
This Application’s Claim
18824110 Claims
4
The robot control device according to claim 1,
See the double patenting rejection of claim 1 in view of claim 2 of 18824110 and Masaki above.
4
wherein the information related to the position of the workpiece is
(Claim 4) wherein the processor is configured to acquire first input data related to a shape of the … and the processor is configured to calculate the position of the workpiece based on the first input data
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 claim 2 of application 18824110 to further include the teachings of claim 4 of application 18824110 with a reasonable expectation of success to accurately acquire the position of the workpiece and because welding a workpiece relies on workpiece shape.
Application 18824110 does not explicitly teach, but Masaki teaches three-dimensional shape data (See at the three dimensions illustrated in at least figs. 3 and 4.)
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 application 18824110 to further include the teachings of Masaki with a reasonable expectation of success to better account for the three-dimensionality of real workpieces to improve welding accuracy in all three dimensions.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Komatsu (US 20170090431 A1) is pertinent because it has the same applicant and discusses modifying teaching points to account for displacement of a workpiece in a welding operation.
Umeno (US 5570458 A) is pertinent because it discusses amending a taught work path to track an actual work path to weld on the workpiece.
Satou (US 20190160662 A1) is pertinent because it discusses correcting teaching points for differences in position or shape in the workpiece.
The above mentioned art, evaluated separately and in combination, does not disclose the entirety of limitations of the dependent claim 8 since they do not describe calculating the actual measured position of the workpiece based on positions of the two holes of differing sizes as disclosed by the applicant. No prior art has been found at the time of writing this office action to reject the pending claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657