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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2019 212 403.8, filed on 08/20/2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 13 are amended. Claims 2-4, 10, and 14-16 are as previously presented. Claims 5-8 and 12 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-4, 9-11, and 13-16 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-12, filed on 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, and 13-16 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding the power distribution between a core and ring fiber and newly found prior art regarding this feature.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-11, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (DE 102014107716 B3) in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 20130259298 A1, hereinafter Srinivasan) and Deephanphongs et al. (US 10034049 B1, hereinafter Deephanphongs) and Victor et al. (US 20180185965 A1, hereinafter Victor).
Regarding claim 1, Muller discloses a method for determining at least one spatter characteristic of spatter particles (Abstract, “method for the reduction of welding spatters (5) during welding with a laser beam”) emanating from a melting zone of a workpiece during machining of the workpiece using a machining beam or laser beam (Page 2, Para. 1, “Constant pumping of the vapor capillary causes the effluent vapor to consistently entrain minute amounts of the melt in the form of process emissions. If this process is disturbed by "melting waves", the vapor capillary breaks down. Trapped gas and the simultaneous construction of a new steam capillary lead to heavy ejections. This results in splashes of molten material, which deposit near the weld on the surface of the workpieces. The ejected material is missing in the weld, which in the worst case requires reworking.”, where weld spatters come from a breakdown of the vapor capillary during machining with a laser, which causes splashes of molten material),
the method comprising: recording images of a spatial region through which spatter particles fly during the machining of the workpiece by tracking the spatter particles respectively over multiple images recorded one after another in time (Abstract, “As a basis for the adjustment of the oscillation parameters, the number and size of the spatters (5) detected in an image section (4) by images (1) taken with a camera by the laser focal spot (3) and the splice (2) at high repetition rate are recorded in real time evaluated.”); and
determining the at least one spatter characteristic by evaluating the recorded images by using across-the-images evaluation of the multiple images (Page 5, Para. 5, “By an object tracking (which takes place for example by means of recognition of characteristic features in a successive image series), the direction of movement and speed of a welding spatter can be determined. These data can be used for a supplementary process evaluation.”, where a spatter characteristic can include direction and speed); and
adjusting, during processing of the workpiece, the laser beam based on the determined at least one spatter characteristic, to reduce at least one of the number or size of the spatter particles (Page 3, Para. 4, “The object of the invention is to monitor the occurrence of welding spatters in laser beam welding in real time (ie with a high sampling rate) and to reduce the size and number of welding spatters occurring by adapting the process parameters of the welding process using the laser beam, controlled by this real-time monitoring. This dynamic adaptation of the process parameters should be possible continuously during the welding process, wherein the process parameters to be selected at the beginning of the welding process can be set automatically according to the conditions (eg material composition of the workpieces to be joined, properties of the weld seam, feed rate during welding, etc.) should.”, where during processing, the process parameters can be altered to reduce spatter).
Muller does not disclose:
across-the-images evaluation including the steps of: counting each respective spatter particle in only one of the multiple images, only when the respective spatter particle occurs for a first time in an image;
assigning a spatter particle its own identifier upon the spatter particle occurring for the first time in an image; and
using the identifier to also identify the spatter particle in subsequent images to prevent the same spatter particles from being counted multiple times;
guiding the machining beam or laser beam towards the workpiece using a dual fiber having a core fiber and a ring fiber surrounding the core fiber;
adjusting the power distribution between the core fiber and the ring fiber to reduce spatter particles.
However, Srinivasan discloses, in the similar field of counting objects within images (Para. 0002, “methods and apparatus to count people in images.”), where each respective object is counted only once in multiple images when they occur for the first time (Para. 0091, “The blob creator 1102 uses the whitened/blackened pixel data to identify individual blobs that likely correspond to a person (block 1902). For example, the blob creator 1102 combines or overlays the whitened/blackened image data spanning across the period of time and combines the whitened pixels of the overlaid image to form a blob.”, where individual blobs are counted when they first appear in an image and assigned a center of gravity as the identifier), where each object is assigned its own identifier upon occurring for the first time (Para. 0076, “the example blob tally generator 524 includes a center of gravity calculator 1104 to identify a center of blobs provided by the blob creator 1102 connected to the second set of face rectangles 508 and, thus, the second image sensor 405.”; Fig. 19, where each individual blob is assigned a center of gravity as an identifier), where that identifier is used to identify that object in subsequent images (Para. 0076, “determine whether the calculated center of gravity for a blob associated with the second image sensor 405 falls within boundaries of the overlap region 204. If the center of gravity of the blob falls within the boundaries of the overlap region 204, the blob is eliminated from the blob image formed by the blob creator 1102.”, where the center of gravity of the blob is used to identify the blob in subsequent images). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the across the image evaluation of spatters in Muller to include the assigning of unique identifiers as taught by Srinivasan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to prevent double counting of objects through the use of unique center of gravity identifiers for individual objects, as stated by Srinivasan, Para. 0076, “However, because the example people counter 406 of FIG. 5 counts people using multiple image sensors, some blobs provided by the blob creator 1102 may be double counted. To eliminate redundant blobs associated with the second image sensor 405, the example blob tally generator 524 includes a center of gravity calculator 1104 to identify a center of blobs provided by the blob creator 1102”.
Further, Deephanphongs discloses, in the similar field of counting objects within images (Abstract, “The client system captures visual data of one or more users of the client system with the camera. The client system then analyzes the captured visual data to determine a facial image for each respective user of the one or more users. Based on the facial image, the client system then determines if a respective user is a participant in a media viewership study”), where a person or particle is uniquely identified with an identifier in subsequent images in order to prevent that person/particle from being counted multiple times (Section 12, lines 25-32, “In some implementations, the client system 102, with user consent, will collect visual information necessary to identify new users to prevent double counting. For example, if a user leaves the viewing room and then later returns, the client system 102 retains enough information to identify the user as a return user, not a new user. This allows the client system to avoid double counting previously unknown users.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the identifier for spatter particles in modified Muller to include using that identifier in subsequent images to prevent double counting as taught by Deephanphongs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to accurately count the amount of objects within an image, where new objects can be added into the count and prevented from being double counted, as stated by Deephanphongs, Section 19, lines 35-42, “For example, the client system periodically captures facial images for one or more users. When the system identifies a user who is not enrolled in the user viewership study the system includes this user in the total count statistics. The system retains the facial image for the non-enrolled user. The system then compares future identified non-enrolled users to the retained facial images. In this way, the system avoids double counting an unknown user.”.
Victor discloses, in the similar field of spatter determination from laser beam machining (Para. 0142, “stabilize the melt pool by, for example, reducing or eliminating an amount of spatter.”, and Para. 0141, “The optical beam employed for exposing the material is emitted from an optical fiber, such as any of the optical fiber lasers disclosed herein.”), where a laser beam having a core fiber and a ring fiber surrounding the core fiber is guided towards a workpiece (Para. 0076, “Second length of fiber 208 includes confinement regions 216, 218 and 220. Confinement region 216 is a central core surrounded by two annular (or ring-shaped) confinement regions 218 and 220.”, and Para. 0016, “exposing the melt pool to an optical beam comprising at least one beam characteristic”), where the power distribution between the core and ring fibers can be adjusted in order to reduce spatter (Para. 0088, “Referring again to FIG. 5, with the noted parameters, when VBC fiber 200 is straight about 90% of the power is contained within the central confinement region 216, and about 100% of the power is contained within confinement regions 216 and 218. Referring now to FIG. 6, when fiber 200 is bent to preferentially excite second ring confinement region 220, nearly 75% of the power is contained within confinement region 220, and more than 95% of the power is contained within confinement regions 218 and 220.”, and Para. 0089, “Changing the bend radius can thus change the intensity distribution at the output of the second length of fiber 208, thereby changing the diameter or spot size of the beam, and thus also changing its radiance and BPP value.”, where the intensity distribution at the output of the second length of fiber includes a core fiber 216 and ring fibers 218 and 220, where the intensity distribution can change the power distributed between the different areas 216, 218, and 220; where intensity distribution that changes the power distributed is a beam parameter that can be adjusted for the second fiber, Para. 0011, “The one or more beam characteristics may include beam diameter, divergence distribution, BPP, intensity distribution, luminance, M.sup.2 value, NA, optical intensity, power density, radial beam position, radiance, or spot size, or any combination thereof.”, and Para. 0136, “Process 2500 moves to block 2508, where at least a portion of the one or more beam characteristics of the optical beam are maintained within one or more confinement regions of the second length of fiber.”, and where beam parameters are adjusted to reduce spatter, Para. 0142, “characteristics comprises adjusting a beam parameter product of the optical beam…Varying the at least one beam characteristic can produce numerous different beam profiles suited for forming and controlling/adjusting the keyhole cavity, for example, at least one keyhole cavity property, and can stabilize the melt pool by, for example, reducing or eliminating an amount of spatter.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam and spatter monitoring system of modified Muller to include multiple fiber confinement areas that can have their power distribution adjusted in order to reduce spatter as taught by Victor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to reduce undesired spatter, as stated by Victor, Para. 0142, “characteristics comprises adjusting a beam parameter product of the optical beam…Varying the at least one beam characteristic can produce numerous different beam profiles suited for forming and controlling/adjusting the keyhole cavity, for example, at least one keyhole cavity property, and can stabilize the melt pool by, for example, reducing or eliminating an amount of spatter.”, and where the different core and ring fiber areas allow for greater beam control and fine tuning of the beam profile, Para. 0079, “In some examples, it may be desirable to increase a number of confinement regions in a second length of fiber to increase granularity of beam control over beam displacements for fine-tuning a beam profile. For example, confinement regions may be configured to provide stepwise beam displacement.”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Muller teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses which further comprises determining the at least one spatter characteristic as follows by using the across-the-images evaluation: a number of spatter particles, or a size of the spatter particles (Muller, Page 5, Para. 4 from end, “Based on the spatter parameters such as spatter size, spatter number, and spatter rate, target oscillation parameters are set that may differ from the actual oscillation parameters.”), or a production rate of the spatter particles, or a production density of the spatter particles, or a speed of the spatter particles, or a trajectory of the spatter particles (Muller, Page 5, Para. 5, “By an object tracking (which takes place for example by means of recognition of characteristic features in a successive image series), the direction of movement and speed of a welding spatter can be determined. These data can be used for a supplementary process evaluation.”, where a spatter characteristic can include direction and speed; meaning that trajectory and speed are covered).
Regarding claim 9, modified Muller teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses which further comprises setting at least one of the following laser welding parameters when machining the workpiece by using the laser beam: a total power of the laser beam, or a pulse frequency of the laser beam (Muller, Page 4, Para. 5, “The laser beam welding method according to the present invention with adaptively adjusting the oscillation parameters for the purpose of reducing spattering during joining a first workpiece to a second workpiece at a joint by means of the laser beam welding apparatus”), or a laser power modulation of the laser beam, or a focal position of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 10, modified Muller teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses which further comprises ascertaining a quality of the machining of the workpiece based on the at least one determined spatter characteristic (Muller, From a background art reference, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “In US 2012 0 152 916 A1 discloses a method for monitoring the quality of laser beam welding, in which on the basis of an image taken with a high-speed camera image quality determining features such. For example, the number of weld spatters can be analyzed using a comparison table and displayed on a monitor.”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Muller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses a non-transitory computer program product with instructions stored thereon that when executed on a controller of a machining machine performs the steps of claim 1 (Muller, Page 4, Para. 4, “For example, the evaluation unit is a computer (PC) with an interface provided for connection to the camera, wherein the evaluation unit has a second interface for connection to a control unit of the laser beam welding apparatus.”, where PC typically include non-transitory program products with instructions, where this evaluation unit would perform the image analysis of weld spatters to determine quality of the weld).
Regarding claim 11, Muller discloses a machining machine (Page 2, Para. 1, “laser machining of the workpiece”), comprising:
a machining head for directing a machining beam or a laser beam onto a workpiece to be machined (Page 2, Para. 1, “In the laser welding process, a molten bath is created at the point where the laser beam meets the workpieces to be joined. Deep penetration welding requires very high power densities of about 1 megawatt per square centimeter. The laser beam not only melts the metal but also generates steam.”, where a laser beam is carried by a machining head during a laser welding process, where that laser beam can be moved through that machining head);
a camera directed onto a spatial region through which spatter particles emanating from a melting zone of the workpiece fly during the machining of the workpiece (Abstract, “As a basis for the adjustment of the oscillation parameters, the number and size of the spatters (5) detected in an image section (4) by images (1) taken with a camera by the laser focal spot (3) and the splice (2) at high repetition rate are recorded in real time evaluated.”; and Page 2, Para. 1, “Constant pumping of the vapor capillary causes the effluent vapor to consistently entrain minute amounts of the melt in the form of process emissions. If this process is disturbed by "melting waves", the vapor capillary breaks down. Trapped gas and the simultaneous construction of a new steam capillary lead to heavy ejections. This results in splashes of molten material, which deposit near the weld on the surface of the workpieces. The ejected material is missing in the weld, which in the worst case requires reworking.”, where weld spatters come from a breakdown of the vapor capillary during machining with a laser, which causes splashes of molten material); and
an image processing device for evaluating the spatter particles in an image recorded by said camera (Page 4, Para. 4, “an evaluation unit connected to the camera, with the aid of which u. a. an automated processing and evaluation of the images taken with the camera can be performed”),
said image processing device having an across-the- images evaluation device respectively tracking the spatter particles over multiple images recorded one after another in time and determining at least one spatter characteristic from the multiple images (Page 5, Para. 5, “By an object tracking (which takes place for example by means of recognition of characteristic features in a successive image series), the direction of movement and speed of a welding spatter can be determined. These data can be used for a supplementary process evaluation.”, where a spatter characteristic can include direction and speed); and
a control unit programmed to adjust the laser beam during the machining of the workpiece based on the at least one determined spatter characteristic (Page 3, Para. 4, “The object of the invention is to monitor the occurrence of welding spatters in laser beam welding in real time (ie with a high sampling rate) and to reduce the size and number of welding spatters occurring by adapting the process parameters of the welding process using the laser beam, controlled by this real-time monitoring. This dynamic adaptation of the process parameters should be possible continuously during the welding process, wherein the process parameters to be selected at the beginning of the welding process can be set automatically according to the conditions (eg material composition of the workpieces to be joined, properties of the weld seam, feed rate during welding, etc.) should.”, where during processing, the process parameters can be altered to reduce spatter).
Muller does not disclose:
across-the-images evaluation device configured to: count each respective spatter particle in only one of the multiple images, only when the respective spatter particle occurs for a first time in an image;
assign a spatter particle its own identifier upon the spatter particle occurring for the first time in an image; and
use the identifier to also identify the spatter particle in subsequent images to prevent the same spatter particles from being counted multiple times;
the machining head including a dual fiber having a core fiber and a ring fiber surrounding the core fiber arranged to guide the machining beam or laser beam towards the workpiece;
adjust the power distribution between the core fiber and the ring fiber.
However, Srinivasan discloses, in the similar field of counting objects within images (Para. 0002, “methods and apparatus to count people in images.”), where each respective object is counted only once in multiple images when they occur for the first time (Para. 0091, “The blob creator 1102 uses the whitened/blackened pixel data to identify individual blobs that likely correspond to a person (block 1902). For example, the blob creator 1102 combines or overlays the whitened/blackened image data spanning across the period of time and combines the whitened pixels of the overlaid image to form a blob.”, where individual blobs are counted when they first appear in an image and assigned a center of gravity as the identifier), where each object is assigned its own identifier upon occurring for the first time (Para. 0076, “the example blob tally generator 524 includes a center of gravity calculator 1104 to identify a center of blobs provided by the blob creator 1102 connected to the second set of face rectangles 508 and, thus, the second image sensor 405.”; Fig. 19, where each individual blob is assigned a center of gravity as an identifier), where that identifier is used to identify that object in subsequent images (Para. 0076, “determine whether the calculated center of gravity for a blob associated with the second image sensor 405 falls within boundaries of the overlap region 204. If the center of gravity of the blob falls within the boundaries of the overlap region 204, the blob is eliminated from the blob image formed by the blob creator 1102.”, where the center of gravity of the blob is used to identify the blob in subsequent images). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the across the image evaluation of spatters in Muller to include the assigning of unique identifiers as taught by Srinivasan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to prevent double counting of objects through the use of unique center of gravity identifiers for individual objects, as stated by Srinivasan, Para. 0076, “However, because the example people counter 406 of FIG. 5 counts people using multiple image sensors, some blobs provided by the blob creator 1102 may be double counted. To eliminate redundant blobs associated with the second image sensor 405, the example blob tally generator 524 includes a center of gravity calculator 1104 to identify a center of blobs provided by the blob creator 1102”.
Further, Deephanphongs discloses, in the similar field of counting objects within images (Abstract, “The client system captures visual data of one or more users of the client system with the camera. The client system then analyzes the captured visual data to determine a facial image for each respective user of the one or more users. Based on the facial image, the client system then determines if a respective user is a participant in a media viewership study”), where a person or particle is uniquely identified with an identifier in subsequent images in order to prevent that person/particle from being counted multiple times (Section 12, lines 25-32, “In some implementations, the client system 102, with user consent, will collect visual information necessary to identify new users to prevent double counting. For example, if a user leaves the viewing room and then later returns, the client system 102 retains enough information to identify the user as a return user, not a new user. This allows the client system to avoid double counting previously unknown users.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the identifier for spatter particles in modified Muller to include using that identifier in subsequent images to prevent double counting as taught by Deephanphongs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to accurately count the amount of objects within an image, where new objects can be added into the count and prevented from being double counted, as stated by Deephanphongs, Section 19, lines 35-42, “For example, the client system periodically captures facial images for one or more users. When the system identifies a user who is not enrolled in the user viewership study the system includes this user in the total count statistics. The system retains the facial image for the non-enrolled user. The system then compares future identified non-enrolled users to the retained facial images. In this way, the system avoids double counting an unknown user.”.
Victor discloses, in the similar field of spatter determination from laser beam machining (Para. 0142, “stabilize the melt pool by, for example, reducing or eliminating an amount of spatter.”, and Para. 0141, “The optical beam employed for exposing the material is emitted from an optical fiber, such as any of the optical fiber lasers disclosed herein.”), where a laser beam having a core fiber and a ring fiber surrounding the core fiber is guided towards a workpiece (Para. 0076, “Second length of fiber 208 includes confinement regions 216, 218 and 220. Confinement region 216 is a central core surrounded by two annular (or ring-shaped) confinement regions 218 and 220.”, and Para. 0016, “exposing the melt pool to an optical beam comprising at least one beam characteristic”), where the power distribution between the core and ring fibers can be adjusted in order to reduce spatter (Para. 0088, “Referring again to FIG. 5, with the noted parameters, when VBC fiber 200 is straight about 90% of the power is contained within the central confinement region 216, and about 100% of the power is contained within confinement regions 216 and 218. Referring now to FIG. 6, when fiber 200 is bent to preferentially excite second ring confinement region 220, nearly 75% of the power is contained within confinement region 220, and more than 95% of the power is contained within confinement regions 218 and 220.”, and Para. 0089, “Changing the bend radius can thus change the intensity distribution at the output of the second length of fiber 208, thereby changing the diameter or spot size of the beam, and thus also changing its radiance and BPP value.”, where the intensity distribution at the output of the second length of fiber includes a core fiber 216 and ring fibers 218 and 220, where the intensity distribution can change the power distributed between the different areas 216, 218, and 220; where intensity distribution that changes the power distributed is a beam parameter that can be adjusted for the second fiber, Para. 0011, “The one or more beam characteristics may include beam diameter, divergence distribution, BPP, intensity distribution, luminance, M.sup.2 value, NA, optical intensity, power density, radial beam position, radiance, or spot size, or any combination thereof.”, and Para. 0136, “Process 2500 moves to block 2508, where at least a portion of the one or more beam characteristics of the optical beam are maintained within one or more confinement regions of the second length of fiber.”, and where beam parameters are adjusted to reduce spatter, Para. 0142, “characteristics comprises adjusting a beam parameter product of the optical beam…Varying the at least one beam characteristic can produce numerous different beam profiles suited for forming and controlling/adjusting the keyhole cavity, for example, at least one keyhole cavity property, and can stabilize the melt pool by, for example, reducing or eliminating an amount of spatter.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam and spatter monitoring system of modified Muller to include multiple fiber confinement areas that can have their power distribution adjusted in order to reduce spatter as taught by Victor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to reduce undesired spatter, as stated by Victor, Para. 0142, “characteristics comprises adjusting a beam parameter product of the optical beam…Varying the at least one beam characteristic can produce numerous different beam profiles suited for forming and controlling/adjusting the keyhole cavity, for example, at least one keyhole cavity property, and can stabilize the melt pool by, for example, reducing or eliminating an amount of spatter.”, and where the different core and ring fiber areas allow for greater beam control and fine tuning of the beam profile, Para. 0079, “In some examples, it may be desirable to increase a number of confinement regions in a second length of fiber to increase granularity of beam control over beam displacements for fine-tuning a beam profile. For example, confinement regions may be configured to provide stepwise beam displacement.”.
Regarding claim 14, modified Muller teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, as set forth above, discloses wherein said camera is aligned parallel or coaxial to the machining beam impinging on the workpiece or at an angle to a surface of the workpiece or parallel to the surface of the workpiece (Muller, Page 6, last Para., “In 2 is based on the image captured by the camera 1 the case of the parallel to the feed direction oscillating laser focal spot 3 shown.”).
Claims 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (DE 102014107716 B3) in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 20130259298 A1, hereinafter Srinivasan) and Deephanphongs et al. (US 10034049 B1, hereinafter Deephanphongs) and Victor et al. (US 20180185965 A1, hereinafter Victor) in further view of Roos et al. (US 20150144606 A1, hereinafter Roos).
Regarding claim 2, modified Muller teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Muller does not disclose:
which further comprises providing the images as individual images of a recorded video sequence.
However, Roos discloses, in the similar field of spatter detection (Para. 0017, “quality of the generated end fillet weld, for example with regard to spatter”), where images or video can be used to determine spatter characteristics of a weld (Para. 0017, “The images or video sequences recorded by the camera can also be automatically evaluated with regard to checking the quality of the generated end fillet weld, for example with regard to spatter, pores, cracks and the like.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the images taken at 25 Hz in modified Muller to be from a video sequence as taught by Roos.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use either images or video, where video is essentially a collection of images taken one after the another, where either can allow a user to examine spatter characteristics, as stated by Roos, Para. 0017, “The images or video sequences recorded by the camera can also be automatically evaluated with regard to checking the quality of the generated end fillet weld, for example with regard to spatter”.
Regarding claim 15, modified Muller teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, as set forth above.
Modified Muller does not disclose:
wherein said camera is a video camera.
However, Roos discloses, in the similar field of spatter detection (Para. 0017, “quality of the generated end fillet weld, for example with regard to spatter”), where images or video can be used to determine spatter characteristics of a weld, where the camera can be capable being a video camera (Para. 0017, “The images or video sequences recorded by the camera can also be automatically evaluated with regard to checking the quality of the generated end fillet weld, for example with regard to spatter, pores, cracks and the like.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the images taken at 25 Hz in modified Muller to be from a video sequence from a video camera as taught by Roos.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use either images or video, where video is essentially a collection of images taken one after the another, where either can allow a user to examine spatter characteristics, as stated by Roos, Para. 0017, “The images or video sequences recorded by the camera can also be automatically evaluated with regard to checking the quality of the generated end fillet weld, for example with regard to spatter”.
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (DE 102014107716 B3) in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 20130259298 A1, hereinafter Srinivasan) and Deephanphongs et al. (US 10034049 B1, hereinafter Deephanphongs) and Victor et al. (US 20180185965 A1, hereinafter Victor) in further view of Kratzsch et al. (US 6822188 B1, hereinafter Kratzsch).
Regarding claim 4, modified Muller teaches the method according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Modified Muller does not disclose:
which further comprises ascertaining a loss in material volume of the melting zone, caused by the spatter particles, from the determined number and size of the spatter particles.
However, Kratzsch discloses, in the similar field of spatter examination of welds (Page 10, Section 7, lines 32-34, “These regions that "flare up" with additional brightness are associated with spatter during welding.”), where spatter size and volume can be examined in order to determine the volume of material that is loss from the melting zone (Page 10, Section 7, lines 34-38, “In contrast to known monitoring methods, the method presented here makes it possible to detect not only the occurrence of spatters, but also their size and volume. The volume deficit for the weld seam is especially important in this regard.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the spatter detection in modified Muller to correlate the size and volume with the missing volume of the weld as taught by Kratzsch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as it is implied in Muller, Page 2, Para. 1, “This results in splashes of molten material, which deposit near the weld on the surface of the workpieces. The ejected material is missing in the weld, which in the worst case requires reworking.”, where the advantage is explicitly stated in Kratzsch in that determining the spatter volume and size allows for an accurate determination of how much volume is missing from the weld, which can assist with determining if reworking is needed from Muller, as stated by Kratzsch, Page 10, Section 7, lines 34-38, “In contrast to known monitoring methods, the method presented here makes it possible to detect not only the occurrence of spatters, but also their size and volume. The volume deficit for the weld seam is especially important in this regard.”.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (DE 102014107716 B3) in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 20130259298 A1, hereinafter Srinivasan) and Deephanphongs et al. (US 10034049 B1, hereinafter Deephanphongs) and Victor et al. (US 20180185965 A1, hereinafter Victor) in further view of Kangastupa et al. (WO 2019129917 A1, hereinafter Kangastupa).
Regarding claim 13, modified Muller teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, as set forth above.
Modified Muller does not disclose:
which further comprises: a deflecting unit disposed in a beam path of the laser beam, said deflecting unit being activated by said control unit and, in accordance with the at least one determined spatter characteristic, deflecting the laser beam either only into said core fiber or only into said ring fiber or both into said core fiber and into said ring fiber.
However, Kangastupa discloses, in the similar field of weld spatters (Para. 0022, “the amount of spatter may be reduced and lower porosity can be achieved.”), where a laser beam can include a fiber laser having a center or core fiber and a ring fiber surrounding the core fiber (Para. 0032, “The wavelength of the fiber laser in the center beam 1”, and Para. 0044, “the ring beam 2 may be generated by combining laser beams from the originating laser devices and feed fibers in a multi-core optical fiber”; Fig. 1b, where the ring beam 2 is shown to surround the center beam 1), where a control unit can determine whether to activate the ring beam or the center ring depending on the spatter conditions (Para. 0036, “The specific configuration of the diode light in combination of the fiber laser in annular ring enables improvement in welding quality. Further, since more stable melt pool of the material being processed can be achieved, this enables to reduce spatter.”, and Para. 0043, “The use of the ring beam in continuous welding is also advantageous in avoiding spatter.”, where under specific welding conditions that can be correlated with spatter, the spatter can be reduced through activating the ring beam, where both beam activations can be controlled, Para. 0041, “For example, the control unit 10 may be configured to switch off the ring beam in response to the thickness of the workpiece falling under predetermined thickness limit value for switching off the ring laser beam…Different power densities and relation between the center beam 1 and the ring beam 2 may be controlled depending on the material being welded.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam in modified Muller to include the center and ring fiber beams, where the activation of each can be controlled depending on spatter conditions in order to reduce spatter as taught by Kangastupa; regarding the use of a deflecting unit, it is the Examiner’s position that the control unit from Kangastupa is able to achieve the same end result of deflecting the laser beam to enter either the ring or center or both beams through being able to control their activations and that having a deflecting unit would be a mere user design choice.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to reduce spatter during specific welding sequences, such as with continuous welding, through the use of a separation of the laser beam into a center and a ring, as stated by Kangastupa, Para. 0043, “The use of the ring beam in continuous welding is also advantageous in avoiding spatter. In an embodiment, power density of the center beam 1 may be set as low or the center beam may be even closed completely. Thus overheating may be avoided.”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
03/27/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761