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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 12/4/25, the Applicant amended claims 1, 13, 20, and argued claims rejected in the Office Action dated 6/4/25. Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-22 are pending examination.
In light of the Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the 35 USC 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 2, 13, 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., United States Patent Publication 20220088719 (hereinafter “Lin”), in view of Wagner et al., United States Patent Publication 20220009026 (hereinafter “Wagner”), in further view of Kuno et al., United States Patent Publication 20210080400 (hereinafter “Kuno”).
Claim 1:
Lin discloses:
A processing device, comprising circuitry configure to (see Lin, paragraph [0014] and [0017]),
acquire an image including a first detection result and a second detection result by inputting a first image to a first model (see Lin, paragraphs [0015], [0031], [0032]). Lin discloses acquiring results from the input image into the first model,
the first model detecting a welding element and a defect according to an input of a welding image (see Lin, paragraph [0024]). Lin discloses a model detecting defects based on the image,
the first detection result including a first feature indicating the welding element (see Lin, paragraph [0044]). Lin discloses extracting welding information from the image such as information about the objects and positions,
the second detection result including a second feature indicating the defect (see Lin, paragraph [0044]). Lin discloses the second result is related to the defect itself such as identifying the gaps in the welding,
the processing device determining an appropriateness of the second detection result by using the first detection result (see Lin, paragraph [0031]). Lin discloses determining if the defect is valid based on the element.
Lin fails to expressly disclose acquiring a first image when welding and using the images to indicate an edge and analyze the pixels.
Wagner discloses:
acquire a first image, the first image being imaged when welding (see paragraph [0005]). Wagner teaches acquiring images while welding is being performed, and
the first detection result including a first feature indicating an outer edge of the welding element (see paragraph [0046]). Wagner teaches a first feature indicating an outer edge of the welding element;
the first detection result including a second feature indicating an outer edge of the defect (see paragraph [0046]). Wagner teaches a first feature indicating an outer edge displacement;
the circuitry being configured to
compare a number of pixels included in the first feature or a first cumulative sum of pixel values of the pixels to a first threshold (see paragraph [0053],.[0054], [0097], [0098]). Wagner teaches compare a number of pixels of the defect based on all the numbers, and
determine that the second detection result is appropriate in a case where the number of pixels or the first cumulative sum is not less than the first threshold (see paragraph [0096]-[0097] and [0102]). Wagner teaches determining that the result meets the threshold to determine the defect.
the circuitry being configured to
repeatedly acquire a plurality of the first images, input the plurality of first images sequentially to the first model, and acquire a plurality of the images each including the first and second detection results (see paragraph [0050] and [0051]). Wagner teaches monitoring the welding by constantly taking images during the welding which results in multiple detection results,
repeatedly determine that each of a plurality of the second detection results is appropriate (see paragraph [0050] and [0051]). Wagner teaches constantly determining based on the analysis and what defects are identified, if second detection results are appropriate,
determine, based on at least the plurality of the second detection results determined to be appropriate, an existence/nonexistence of the defect in each of the plurality of the first images (see paragraphs [0051] and [0052]). Wagner teaches determining based on second/additional results if the defect exists, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin to include real time analyzing defect in real time using images for the purpose of efficiently determining welding defects during welding, as taught by Wagner.
Lin and Wagner fail to expressly disclose confirming the existence of a defect based on a threshold.
Kuno discloses:
confirm the existence of the defect in a case where a number of times of consecutively determining the defect to exist is not less than a third threshold, wherein the existence of the defect is not confirmed in a case where the number of times of consecutively determining the defect to exist is less than the third threshold (see paragraph [0049]). Kuno teaches determining the presence or absence of a defect based on the frequency of the occurrence of the of defect. The system learns the defect and picks candidate positions based on the frequency of the occurrence.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin and Wagner to include determining the existence of a defect based on a frequency of occurrences of the defect for the purpose of improving accuracy of the determination of the presence or absence of a defect using the neural network, as taught by Kuno.
Claim 2:
Lin fails to expressly discloses determining pixel count and sum.
Wagner discloses:
a pixel value of each pixel included in the second feature output from the first model changes according to a sureness of the defect (see paragraph [0105]). Wagner teaches taking the average of pixel values, and
in determination of the existence/nonexistence of the defect in each of the plurality of the first images (see paragraphs [0097] and [0098]), the circuitry is configured to
compare a second cumulative sum of pixel values of pixels included in the second feature to a second threshold (see paragraphs [0062], [0097], [0098]). Wagner years comparing a sum of values based on a second ROI feature to a second threshold , and
determine that the defect exists in a case where the second cumulative sum is not less than the second threshold (see paragraph [0096]-[0097] and [0102]). Wagner teaches determining that the result meets the threshold to determine the defect.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin to include real time analyzing defect in real time using images for the purpose of efficiently determining welding defects during welding, as taught by Wagner.
Claim 13:
Lin discloses:
A processing device, comprising circuitry configured to (see Lin, paragraph [0014] and [0017]),
input a first image to a first model (see Lin, paragraphs [0015], [0031], [0032]). Lin discloses acquiring results from the input image into the first model,
acquire a first detection result and a second detection result (see Lin, paragraph [0024]). Lin discloses a model detecting defects based on the image,
the first model detecting a welding element and a defect according to an input of a welding image (see Lin, paragraph [0024]). Lin discloses a model detecting defects based on the image,
modify a welding parameter according to a position of the defect calculated using the detection result in a case where the counted number of times is not less than a third threshold, wherein the modified welding parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a speed of the heat source in the first direction, a position of the heat source in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and an output of the heat source (see paragraph [0003], [0046]-[0051] and [0090]). Lin teaches based on the number of defect and by comparing the defects, updating models and parameters of the welding machines for accuracy such as changing the position of the cuts.
Lin fails to expressly disclose quality of the positions when welding an object.
Wagner discloses:
the first image being of welding by moving a heat source along a first direction (see paragraphs [0043] and [0046]). Wagner discloses the image of welding machine by moving the laser.
modify, during the welding, a welding parameter according to a position of the defect calculated using the detection result (see paragraphs [0008]). Wagner teaches modifying the parameter based on the position of laser machine, and
the first detection result including a first feature indicating an outer edge of the welding element (see paragraph [0046]). Wagner teaches a first feature indicating an outer edge of the welding element;
the first detection result including a second feature indicating an outer edge of the defect (see paragraph [0046]). Wagner teaches a first feature indicating an outer edge displacement;
a pixel value of each pixel included in the second feature output from the first model changes according to a sureness of the defect (see paragraph [0105]). Wagner teaches taking the average of pixel values, and
compare a second cumulative sum of pixel values of pixels included in the second feature to a second threshold (see paragraphs [0062], [0097], [0098]). Wagner years comparing a sum of values based on a second ROI feature to a second threshold , and
determine that the defect exists in a case where the second cumulative sum is not less than the second threshold (see paragraph [0096]-[0097] and [0102]). Wagner teaches determining that the result meets the threshold to determine the defect.
the circuitry repeatedly performing inputting the first image to the first model, acquiring the detection result, comparing the second cumulative sum to the second threshold and determining whether the defect exists (see paragraph [0054]-[0057], [0060]-[0064] and [0097]-[0099]). Wagner teaches repeatedly performing an analysis to determine if the defect exists.
the circuitry being configured to count a number of times that the defect is consecutively determined to exist and (see paragraph [0104]). Wagner teaches counting the number of times a defect has happened
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin to include real time analyzing defect in real time using images for the purpose of efficiently determining welding defects during welding, as taught by Wagner.
Claim 15:
Although Claim 15 is a welding system claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the system of Claim 1.
Claims 16, 17:
Although Claim 16 is a processing method claim and Claim 17 is a non-transitory storage medium claim, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the system of Claim 1.
Claim 18:
Lin fails to expressly disclose comparing the number of pixels.
Wagner discloses:
the circuitry being configured to
compare a number of pixels or the first cumulative sum of pixels values of the first feature to a first threshold (see paragraph [0053],.[0054], [0097], [0098]). Wagner teaches compare a number of pixels of the defect based on all the numbers, and
determine that the second detection result is appropriate only when the number of pixels or the first cumulative sum is not less than the first threshold (see paragraph [0096]-[0097] and [0102]). Wagner teaches determining that the result meets the threshold to determine the defect.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin to include real time analyzing defect in real time using images for the purpose of efficiently determining welding defects during welding, as taught by Wagner.
Claim 20:
Lin fails to expressly disclose comparing the number of pixels.
Wagner discloses:
the circuitry being configured to
calculate a second cumulative sum of pixel values of pixels included in the second feature and compare the second cumulative sum to a second threshold in a case where the second detection result is determined to be appropriate (see paragraphs [0062], [0097], [0098]). Wagner teaches comparing a sum of values based on a second ROI feature to a second threshold, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin to include real time analyzing defect in real time using images for the purpose of efficiently determining welding defects during welding, as taught by Wagner.
Claim 21:
Lin fails to expressly disclose determining if the threshold exists based on thresholds.
Wagner discloses:
determine that the defect exists in a case where the second cumulative sum is not less than the second threshold (see paragraph [0096]-[0097] and [0102]). Wagner teaches determining that the result meets the threshold to determine the defect.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin to include real time analyzing defect in real time using images for the purpose of efficiently determining welding defects during welding, as taught by Wagner.
Claim 22:
Lin fails to expressly disclose determining if the threshold exists based on thresholds.
Wagner discloses:
the circuitry is configured not to calculate the second cumulative sum in a case where the second detection result is not determined to be appropriate (see paragraph [0096]-[0099] and [0102]). Wagner teaches further analysis if the defect has occurred but no further analysis or calculations if the defect did not occur.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin to include real time analyzing defect in real time using images for the purpose of efficiently determining welding defects during welding, as taught by Wagner.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Wagner and Kuno, in further view of Kim et al., United States Patent Publication 20150001196 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Claim 3:
Lin, Wagner and Kuno fail to expressly disclose a quality of welding and defects.
Kim discloses:
a quality is determined to be a first quality for an imaging position of the first image in which the defect is determined not to exist (see Kim, paragraphs [0060]-[0062]). Kim teaches determining a quality for the position of the welding defect and determining that it is normal, and
a quality is determined to be a second quality for an imaging position of the first image used as a basis of the second detection result determined to be inappropriate (see Kim, paragraphs [0060]-[0062]). Kim teaches determining a quality for the position of the welding defect and determining if it exists, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner and Kuno to include determining a quality of the defect based on the position for the purpose having more accurate welding monitoring, as taught by Kim.
Claim 6:
Lin, Wagner and Kuno fail to expressly disclose a quality of welding and defects.
Kim discloses:
wherein a quality is determined to be a first quality for a position of the first image in which the defect is determined not to exist (see Kim, paragraphs [0060]-[0062]). Kim teaches determining a quality for the position of the welding defect and determining that it is normal,
a quality is determined to be a second quality for a position of the first image used as a basis of the second detection result determined to be inappropriate (see Kim, paragraphs [0060]-[0062]). Kim teaches determining a quality for the position of the welding defect and determining if it exists, and
a quality is determined to be a third quality for a position of the first image in which the existence of the defect is confirmed (see Kim, paragraphs [0060]-[0062]). Kim teaches determining a quality for the position of the welding defect and determining that the defect is correct.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner and Kuno to include determining a quality of the defect based on the position for the purpose having more accurate welding monitoring, as taught by Kim.
Claim 7:
Lin, Wagner and Kuno fail to expressly disclose a position of the welding defect.
Kim discloses:
wherein a position of the confirmed defect is calculated (see Kim, paragraphs [0060]-[0063]). Kim teaches determining the position of the defects, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner and Kuno to include determining the position of the welding defect for the purpose having more accurate welding monitoring, as taught by Kim.
Claim 8:
Lin, Wagner and Kuno fail to expressly disclose modifying the welding based on the defect confirmation.
Kim discloses:
wherein a welding parameter is modified based on a confirmation result of the defect (see Kim, paragraphs [0063]-[0064]). Kim teaches modifying the parameter by the user selecting the subsequent actions such as continuing welding, advances to the next spot or stopping the welding, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner and Kuno to include modifying the welding parameters for the purpose having more accurate welding monitoring, as taught by Kim.
Claims 9-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Wagner and Kuno, in view of Kim, in further view of Workman et al., United States Patent Publication 20050173493 (hereinafter “Workman”).
Claim 9:
Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim fail to expressly disclose modifying the welding based on the defect confirmation.
Workman discloses:
wherein whether or not the confirmed defect is repaired by welding based on the modified welding parameter is determined (see Workman, paragraphs [0006]-[0008]). Workman teaches modifying the parameter moving the position of the heat source, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim to include modifying the welding parameters for repair for the purpose having more accurate welding repairs, as taught by Workman.
Claim 10:
Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim fail to expressly disclose moving the heat source to repair the defect.
Workman discloses:
wherein the welding is performed by moving a heat source along a first direction, and the modified welding parameter is at least one selected from the group consisting of a speed of the heat source in the first direction, a position of the heat source in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and an output of the heat source (see Workman, paragraphs [0006]-[0008]). Workman teaches modifying the parameter moving the position of the heat source, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim to include modifying the welding parameters for repair for the purpose having more accurate welding repairs, as taught by Workman.
Claim 11:
Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim fail to expressly disclose a weld pool.
Workman discloses:
wherein the welding element is a weld pool (see Workman, paragraphs [0020]). Workman teaches a weld pool, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim to include a weld pool for the purpose having more accurate welding repairs, as taught by Workman.
Claim 12:
Kim discloses:
wherein quality data is generated using a determination result of the appropriateness of the second detection result (see Kim, paragraphs [0060]-[0062]). Kim teaches determining a quality of the welding defect and determining if it exists, and
Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim fail to expressly disclose quality of the positions when welding an object.
Workman discloses:
the quality data includes a plurality of positions of a welding object, and a quality for each of the plurality of positions (see Workman, paragraphs [0005]-[0007]). Workman to achieve the best quality, all position as assessed and the best geometry of the device is produced, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim to include a weld pool for the purpose having more accurate welding repairs, as taught by Workman.
Claim 14:
Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim fail to expressly disclose moving the heat source to repair the defect.
Workman discloses:
wherein the modified welding parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a speed of the heat source in the first direction, a position of the heat source in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and an output of the heat source (see Workman, paragraphs [0006]-[0008]). Workman teaches modifying the parameter moving the position of the heat source, and
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner, Kuno and Kim to include modifying the welding parameters for repair for the purpose having more accurate welding repairs, as taught by Workman.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Wagner and Kuno, in further view of Rajagopalan et al., United States Patent Publication 20180117718 (hereinafter “Rajagopalan”).
Claim 19:
Lin, Wagner and Kuno fails to expressly disclose welding with a torch and a wire.
Rajagopalan discloses:
wherein a torch and wire are used in the welding (see Rajagopalan, paragraphs [0799]). Rajagopalan teaches welding using a torch and a wire, and
the welding parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a speed in the first direction of the torch, a position of the torch in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, current supplied to the torch, a voltage supplied to the torch, and a supply rate of the wire (see Rajagopalan, paragraphs [0799]). Rajagopalan teaches the welding parameters that affect the quality of the weld may include voltage, current, weld torch travel speed, wire feed speed, gas flow, etc. In one embodiment, the other welding parameters that affect the quality of the weld may include impedance, temperature, etc.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lin, Wagner and Kuno to include the effects of different welding parameters for the purpose of accurately determining defects based on the welding parameters, as taught by Rajagopalan.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections:
The 35 USC 101 Rejections have been withdrawn.
103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Wada reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with regard to Claim 13 was filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Thus, as noted during the interview, Lin merely describes general machine-learning processing and does not disclose or suggest modifying a welding parameter. Lin is also silent with respect to the welding parameter including at least one selected from the group consisting of a speed of the heat source in the first direction, a position of the heat source in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and an output of the heat source, as is also recited in Claim 13.
The Examiner disagrees.
Lin teaches based on the number of defect and by comparing the defects, updating models and parameters of the welding machines for accuracy such as changing the position of the cuts (see paragraph [0003], [0046]-[0051] and [0090]). Also, Wagner teaches modifying the parameter based on the position of laser machine (see paragraphs [0008]). Once the defect is detected while welding, parameters may be adjusted. Thus, the combination of Lin and Wagner disclose this claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 3/3/26