DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites, in part:
wherein the teaching handle includes an operation switch configured to allow movableness of the robot body by the external force with respect to the robot body with restricted movableness,
It is not clear what is meant by “with respect to the robot body with restricted movableness”. Is the operation switch allowing the robot body to be moved with respect to itself? Is “the robot body with restricted movableness” introducing a new robot body which has reduced capacity for movement? A possible clarifying amendment may include:
wherein the teaching handle includes an operation switch configured to allow to move in response to the external force
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. (JP S55-133872 A, citations are to the translation provided 6/4/2025) in view of Foucault et al. (US Publication No. 2023/0027368).
Tsuda teaches:
Re claim 1. A welding robot (welding robot, Fig. 1, abstract) comprising:
a robot body with multiple joints (welding robot, Fig. 1); and
a welding torch attached to an end of the robot body (welding torch 7, Fig. 1),
wherein the welding torch includes a torch body and a coupling portion that couples the torch body to the end of the robot body (bracket 19, Figs 2 and 7),
wherein the torch body includes a bending portion between a torch proximal end of the torch body and a torch distal end of the torch body, the bending portion being a bent portion of the torch body (bent portion extending from nozzle 39, Fig. 8),
wherein the welding robot further includes a teaching handle […] (handle, Fig. 8),
wherein the teaching handle is mounted to the welding torch such that a handle distal end is disposed at a position facing the bending portion (Fig. 8),
wherein in side view of the torch body and the teaching handle, with a first torch virtual line along a first portion of the torch body from the torch proximal end to the bending portion interposed therebetween, the teaching handle extends in a direction away from a second portion of the torch body from the bending portion to the torch distal end (Fig. 8), and
wherein a handle mounting angle is an obtuse angle, the handle mounting angle being formed between a second torch virtual line along the second portion of the torch body from the bending portion to the torch distal end and a first handle virtual line along a direction in which the teaching handle extends from the handle distal end (Fig. 8).
Tsuda fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) wherein the welding robot further includes a teaching handle configured to teach a behavior of the robot body according to a position to which the torch distal end moves by an external force applied to the end of the robot body from an operator while the teaching handle is held by the operator.
Foucault teaches, at paragraphs [0032, and 0041-0042] and Fig. 2, a technician may apply forces to move a welding torch, using handle 4, so that a robotic program can recreate the movement of the welding torch by the technician. This allows a technician to teach a welding path in an intuitive manner.
In view of Foucault’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Tsuda, (re claim 1) wherein the welding robot further includes a teaching handle configured to teach a behavior of the robot body according to a position to which the torch distal end moves by an external force applied to the end of the robot body from an operator while the teaching handle is held by the operator, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Foucault teaches a technician may apply forces to move a welding torch, using handle 4, so that a robotic program can recreate the movement of the welding torch by the technician. This allows a technician to teach a welding path in an intuitive manner.
Tsuda further teaches:
Re claim 2. Wherein the handle mounting angle is in a range from 110° to 140° (Fig. 8).
Re claim 3. Wherein in side view of the teaching handle, the teaching handle is curved downward (Fig. 10).
Re claim 4. Wherein the teaching handle comprises:
a handle body extending from a position facing the bending portion (Fig. 8); and
a raised portion for a finger hook over which fingers of an operator are placed in a state where the operator holds the teaching handle, the raised portion being raised from a lower part of the handle body (thicker area with trigger, Fig. 8),
wherein the raised portion has a height from the handle body that becomes smaller from a handle distal end side toward a handle proximal end side (The thicker area with the trigger becomes narrower as one moves along the handle toward the technician, Fig. 8).
Tsuda fails to specifically teach: (re claim 5) wherein the teaching handle includes an operation switch configured to allow movableness of the robot body by the external force with respect to the robot body with restricted movableness, and wherein the operation switch is disposed on an end face of a surface of the raised portion nearer to the handle distal end.
Foucault teaches, at button 46, Fig. 3; and paragraphs [0105, 0121-123, and 0130-0136], a button 46 in the trigger area of a handle may be used to control a computer unit, and this computer unit may use force data from a sensor 7 to move a robot along with a technician’s movements of the welding torch so as not to brake or slow down the movements as would occur without the control by the computer unit. This allows for the robotic arm to become transparent to the technician when the technician desires to manually move the welding torch.
In view of Foucault’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Tsuda, (re claim 5) wherein the teaching handle includes an operation switch configured to allow movableness of the robot body by the external force with respect to the robot body with restricted movableness, and wherein the operation switch is disposed on an end face of a surface of the raised portion nearer to the handle distal end, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Foucault teaches a button 46 in the trigger area of a handle may be used to control a computer unit, and this computer unit may use force data from a sensor 7 to move a robot along with a technician’s movements of the welding torch so as not to brake or slow down the movements as would occur without the control by the computer unit. This allows for the robotic arm to become transparent to the technician when the technician desires to manually move the welding torch.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. (JP S55-133872 A) as modified by Foucault et al. (US Publication No. 2023/0027368) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akio, et al. (JP S58-143065 U, citations are to the translation provided 6/4/2025).
The teachings of Tsuda have been discussed above. Tsuda fails to specifically teach: (re claim 6) wherein the teaching handle is removably mounted to the welding torch.
Akio teaches, at Figs. 1, 3, and 5; page 3, 5th to last line through the first line of page 4; and page 5, lines 7-9; a detachable operation box 7 may be affixed to a welding torch such that it may be held in a technician’s hand to move a welding torch to teach a robotic welding operation. This allows for a technician to guide a welding torch while having access to buttons directing work command data, such as welding start/stop, welding voltage, shielding gas on/off, etc. without having to switch between the welding torch and an operation box, see Akio, pages 2-3. This also permits the operation box to be removed from the welding torch while the robot is controlling the welding torch, thus reducing the mass the robot must move, and allowing a technician to hold and control the operation box.
In view of Akio’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Tsuda, (re claim 6) wherein the teaching handle is removably mounted to the welding torch, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Akio teaches a detachable operation box 7 may be affixed to a welding torch such that it may be held in a technician’s hand to move a welding torch to teach a robotic welding operation. This allows for a technician to guide a welding torch while having access to buttons directing work command data, such as welding start/stop, welding voltage, shielding gas on/off, etc. without having to switch between the welding torch and an operation box. This also permits the operation box to be removed from the welding torch while the robot is controlling the welding torch, thus reducing the mass the robot must move, and allowing a technician to hold and control the operation box.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656