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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/25/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 112b rejection has been accepted and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection has been made over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1). A full rejection can be found below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) teaches a laser processing device that processes an object including two or more types of materials using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 47, laser beam welds two dissimilar materials including a high melting point material 12 and low melting point material 14), the laser processing device comprising:
a drive controller that drives the first laser (Figure 8 Paragraph 49, system control PC 40 is used to define the shape of each pulse and the pulse repetition rate);
an analyzer that obtains material information about the two or more types of materials (Paragraph 81, user inputs a material type for each material such as mild steel and nickel for the two materials), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information about the two or more types of materials (Paragraph 81, program automatically pre-selects values for surface finish, width of weld, weld time, weld overlap, and pulse shape based on indicated materials), wherein
the drive controller drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Figures 7 and 24-27 Paragraph 99, system suggests an appropriate waveform to use based on the material type input parameter wherein the waveform includes adjusting the laser output power; Paragraph 103, the power of the laser is adjusted based on the location of the laser beam on the weld),
the object includes a first part made of a first material and a second part made of a second material different than the first material (Figure 1 Paragraph 47, laser beam welds two dissimilar materials including a high melting point material 12 and low melting point material 14), and
the processing device is configured such that the laser beam scans the object along a lateral direction in which the first part and the second part are arranged (Figures 5-6 Paragraph 53, laser beam is swept from 56A to 56B in a lateral direction in which the material 12 and material 14 are located).
Mudd fails to teach:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength;
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength;
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator; and
an analyzer that obtains material information about the two or more types of materials by analyzing signal light from the two or more types of materials included in the object, and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information about the two or more types of materials, wherein
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator
ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1) teaches a dual-wavelength laser system, comprising:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength (Paragraph 28, wavelength-beam combined beam emitter consists of one or more beam sources emitting a plurality of discrete beams; Figure 3 Paragraph 50, beam 305 from a primary laser 310);
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Paragraph 28, wavelength-beam combined beam emitter consists of one or more beam sources emitting a plurality of discrete beams; Figure 3 Paragraph 50, beam 315 from a secondary laser 320; Paragraph 54, primary laser 310 emits a laser beam 305 having a longer wavelength than the laser beam 315 emitted by the second laser 320);
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 62, primary laser 310 and secondary laser 320 is responsive to a controller 350 including switching on/off and modulating the output power); and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 62, primary laser 310 and secondary laser 320 is responsive to a controller 350 including switching on/off and modulating the output power)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with ZHOU and used two laser beams with different peak wavelengths to process the different materials. This would have been done to enable efficient processing of materials which are highly reflective to longer laser wavelengths such as copper (ZHOU Paragraph 9) as lasers emitting at different wavelengths interact with different materials in different manners (ZHOU Paragraph 7).
Mudd modified with Zhou fails to teach:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the two or more types of materials by analyzing signal light from the two or more types of materials included in the object, and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information about the two or more types of materials, wherein
Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) teaches of an apparatus for determining a material type and/or a surface condition of a workpiece, wherein:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the material by analyzing signal light from the object (Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information (Paragraph 7, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), wherein
drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity1 (Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power) of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 18, computer program product which carries out all the steps of the method described previously in the prior art; Paragraph 17, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece which changes the parameters to the selected parameters; Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power; Paragraph 33, laser beam 2 strikes at a focal point F on an upper side of the workpiece 4).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Hallasch and have an analyzer obtain information of the type of material of the workpiece and adjust parameters based on the type of material. This would have been done to such as to identify the material type of a workpiece to adapt processing parameters (Hallasch Paragraph 3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art when modifying Mudd with Hallasch to have detected each of the different materials 12 and 14 with the analyzer. This would be done as Paragraph 81 of Mudd teaches that the user selects a different material for each of the two materials and Paragraph 99 of Mudd further teaches that said information is used determine an appropriate waveform to use wherein said waveform includes adjusting the laser output power.
Regarding claim 2, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
ZHOU further teaches:
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions (Paragraph 62, primary laser 310 and secondary laser 320 is responsive to a controller 350 including switching on/off and modulating the output power of) to cause the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator to emit one of the first laser beam and the second laser beam and not emit an other of the first laser beam and the second laser beam (Paragraph 11, the primary and secondary lasers may be utilized independently of each other during different portions of the processing operation wherein the two do not emit light toward the material simultaneously).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
Hallasch further teaches:
the analyzer includes a data processor that analyzes the signal light (Paragraph 26, evaluation device configured to determine the material type based on reflectance of the surface).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 3, wherein:
the analyzer adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to coordinates of a processing position of the object by analyzing the signal light, the coordinates being obtained when the signal light is obtained (Figure 12 Paragraphs 125-127, superimposing the laser seam path on top of a camera image of the workpiece; Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Figure 12, position relative to the weld junction in combination with the point # can reasonably be interpreted as a coordinate being obtained by the camera; Hallasch Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece; Figures 7 and 24-27 Paragraph 99, system suggests an appropriate waveform to use based on the material type of each workpiece which reasonably includes information regarding coordinates of the workpieces and the junction), and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions to cause the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator to irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam based on the coordinates of the processing position (Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Paragraph 103, the power of the laser is adjusted based on the location of the laser beam on the weld; Paragraph 56, intensity profile of the waveform is used to weld the two materials together).
The Office further notes that storing locations of defects in combination with processing parameters and controlling repair welding to fix those defects is known in the art as evidenced by Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having the analyzer adjust processing parameters instead of the user manually adjusting a waveform is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the signal light (Hallasch Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece; Paragraph 127, weld seam coordinates are defined through a camera; Figures 7 and 24-27 Paragraph 99, system suggests an appropriate waveform to use based on the material type of each workpiece which reasonably includes information regarding coordinates of the workpieces and the junction; Paragraphs 59-61, output intensity of the laser is varied according to the specified intensity profile depending on distance of laser from the junction wherein the starting and ending coordinates for each move are stored and used).
Regarding claim 6, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Hallasch further teaches:
the analyzer includes:
a light source that emits analysis light (Paragraph 36, illuminating device 15); and
an optical system that irradiates the processing position of the object with the analysis light (Paragraph 36, illumination device 15 outputs illumination light which passes through optical elements to reach the workpiece), and
the signal light is at least part of the analysis light reflected by a surface of the object (Paragraph 45, reflectance of various illuminating radiation 17 is used to determine material types).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the light source of the analysis light is a laser oscillator or a light-emitting diode (LED) (Paragraph 15, illumination source of the illumination device may be a diode laser).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) teaches a laser processing device that processes an object including two or more types of materials using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 47, laser beam welds two dissimilar materials including a high melting point material 12 and low melting point material 14), the laser processing device comprising:
a drive controller that drives the laser beam (Figure 8 Paragraph 49, system control PC 40 is used to define the shape of each pulse and the pulse repetition rate)
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object (Paragraph 81, user inputs a material type such as mild steel and nickel for the two materials), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained (Paragraph 81, program automatically pre-selects values for surface finish, width of weld, weld time, weld overlap, and pulse shape based on indicated materials), wherein
according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 39, characteristics of the assist laser beam 111 and the process laser beam 121 are different but complimentary and depend on the type of material as well as the type of processing application; Paragraph 71, the type of first laser beam used depends on the materials).
Mudd fails to explicitly teach:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength;
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength;
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator; and
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator
the drive controller switches between the first laser beam and the second laser beam at a position where a material of the object changes.
ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1) teaches a dual-wavelength laser system, comprising:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength (Paragraph 28, wavelength-beam combined beam emitter consists of one or more beam sources emitting a plurality of discrete beams; Figure 3 Paragraph 50, beam 305 from a primary laser 310);
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Paragraph 28, wavelength-beam combined beam emitter consists of one or more beam sources emitting a plurality of discrete beams; Figure 3 Paragraph 50, beam 315 from a secondary laser 320; Paragraph 54, primary laser 310 emits a laser beam 305 having a longer wavelength than the laser beam 315 emitted by the second laser 320);
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 62, primary laser 310 and secondary laser 320 is responsive to a controller 350 including switching on/off and modulating the output power of); and
the drive controller switches between the first laser beam and the second laser beam at a position where a material of the object changes (Paragraph 67, controller determines the optimum output beam compositions including switching between beams 305 and 315 as a function of location along the processing path wherein the controller adjusts the laser beam composition between the workpiece and beam when the composition of the material being processed changes; Paragraph 11, the primary and secondary lasers may be utilized independently of each other during different portions of the processing operation wherein the two do not emit light toward the material simultaneously; one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have switched between the first and second laser beam at a position where a material of the object changes as that constitutes a change in the composition of material being processed).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with ZHOU and used two laser beams with different peak wavelengths to process the different materials. This would have been done to enable efficient processing of materials which are highly reflective to longer laser wavelengths such as copper (ZHOU Paragraph 9) as lasers emitting at different wavelengths interact with different materials in different manners (ZHOU Paragraph 7).
Mudd modified with Zhou fails to teach:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object, and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained
Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) teaches of an apparatus for determining a material type and/or a surface condition of a workpiece, wherein:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object (Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained (Paragraph 7, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece)
the drive controller drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the adjustor to change an intensity2 (Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power) of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or second laser beam (Paragraph 18, computer program product which carries out all the steps of the method described previously in the prior art; Paragraph 17, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece which changes the parameters to the selected parameters; Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power; Paragraph 33, laser beam 2 strikes at a focal point F on an upper side of the workpiece 4).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Hallasch and have an analyzer obtain information of the type of material of the workpiece and adjust parameters based on the type of material. This would have been done to such as to identify the material type of a workpiece to adapt processing parameters (Hallasch Paragraph 3)
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) as applied to claims 6 and 1 above, and further in view of Dorsch (US 8890023 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the signal light includes second signal light (Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are used to determine the reflectance or the reflection intensity of the surface), the second signal light being the second analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object (Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are used to determine the reflectance or the reflection intensity of the surface), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions by comparing an intensity of the first signal light with an intensity of the second signal light at the coordinates of the processing position of the object, or comparing a reflectance at the first wavelength with a reflectance at the second wavelength at the coordinates of the processing position of the object (comparing a reflectance; Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are compared such as further discriminate between different material types and surface conditions wherein the reflectance at different wavelengths may be used as a further discriminating criterion between different material types and/or surface conditions; Paragraph 16, illuminating radiation is irradiated onto the surface coaxially with a high-energy beam laser for processing the workpiece and thus would be at the coordinate of the processing position of the workpiece).
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the analysis light includes first analysis light of the first wavelength and the analysis light includes second analysis light of the second wavelength
the first signal light being the first analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verify seam quality during a laser welding process, comprising:
the analysis light includes first analysis light of the first wavelength and second analysis light of the second wavelength (Column 5 Lines 23-39, first camera captures radiation in a first wavelength range in a visible light range and second camera captures radiation in a second wavelength range in a near infrared range),
the signal light includes first signal light and second signal light, the first signal light being the first analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object, the second signal light being the second analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object (Column 5 Lines 23-39, a beam path of the CMOS camera 5a is reflected onto the workpiece surface in an area surrounding the laser beam and the beam path of the CMOS camera 5b is also reflected onto the workpiece surface in an area surrounding the laser beam), and
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors detecting the first and second wavelength. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 11, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object (Paragraph 45, reflectance of various illuminating radiation 17 is used to determine material types)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes a first detector and a second detector,
the first detector receives the signal light, the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object,
the second detector receives at least part of the analysis light, and
the data processor corrects an intensity of the signal light received by the first detector with an intensity of the analysis light received by the second detector.
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verifying a seam quality during a laser welding process, wherein:
the analyzer includes a first detector and a second detector (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b), the first detector receives the signal light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges), the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object (Paragraph 6, illumination is reflected back into the observation direction from the surface of the workpiece),
the second detector receives at least part of the analysis light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges), and
the data processor corrects an intensity of the signal light received by the first detector with an intensity of the analysis light received by the second detector (Column 6 Lines 46-63, the two spectral ranges are logically combined in order to assess seam quality).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors each receiving a part of the analysis light wherein the intensity of the signal received by the first detector is corrected by the light of the second detector. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 17, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light (Paragraph 127, camera is used to capture an image of the materials; camera consists of a two-dimensional array of pixels which receive light)
the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light (Paragraph 65, resulting image of camera is output to a display 70 on the control PC 40)
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light, the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light, and the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object according to a brightness corresponding to a processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image.
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verify seam quality during a laser welding process, comprising:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges; cameras have pixels which capture light),
the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light (Column 6 Lines 21-30, cameras 5a and 5b are used as a detector in an image processing computer via an external control unit)
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object according to a brightness corresponding to a processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image (Column 3 Lines 17-23, method includes improving the seam quality by modifying parameters of the laser welding process such that the seam quality again falls within tolerance intervals; Column 6 Lines 17-21, intensity of the light irradiated onto the respective faces are evaluated by an evaluation device including the position of the focal spot relative to the joint)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors each receiving a part of the analysis light wherein the intensity of the signal received by the first detector is corrected by the light of the second detector. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) as applied to claims 6, 4, and 1 above respectively, and further in view of WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6. Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analysis light includes a wavelength of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analysis light includes a wavelength of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample which is a byproduct of irradiating the object with a laser beam).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer and use the laser beam as the imaging light source. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 9, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 8.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analysis light is produced by guiding part of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam, and the light source of the analyzer is a light source of the first laser oscillator or a light source of the second laser oscillator.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analysis light is produced by guiding part of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam, and the light source of the analyzer is a light source of the first laser oscillator or a light source of the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample which is a byproduct of irradiating the object with a laser beam).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer and use the laser beam as the imaging light source. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 12, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates analysis light, the analysis light separated by the spectrometer irradiates the processing position of the object, the analyzer includes a detector that measures the signal light to measure a reflection spectrum, the signal light being the analysis light separated by the spectrometer and reflected by a surface of the object, the reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light, and the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates analysis light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, light is dispersed according to its wavelength in the spectrometer),
the analysis light separated by the spectrometer irradiates the processing position of the object (Paragraph 343, sample light backscattered off the workpiece is injected into the fiber connected to the high-speed spectrometer),
the analyzer includes a detector that measures the signal light to measure a reflection spectrum (Figure 3 Paragraph 255, photodetector array 118 detects the laser), the signal light being the analysis light separated by the spectrometer (Paragraph 343, light is dispersed according to its wavelength in the spectrometer) and reflected by a surface of the object (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample), the reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 13, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes:
a spectrometer that separates the signal light; and
a detector that measures the signal light separated by the spectrometer to measure a reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light, and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analyzer includes:
a spectrometer that separates the signal light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, light is dispersed according to its wavelength in the spectrometer); and
a detector that measures the signal light separated by the spectrometer to measure a reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, spectrometer outputs electronic signal converted by the detector to a control electronic 518), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 21, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the signal light is emission light produced during the processing as a byproduct of irradiating the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the signal light is emission light produced during the processing as a byproduct of irradiating the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample which is a byproduct of irradiating the object with a laser beam)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer and use the laser beam as the imaging light source. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 22, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 21.
Webster further teaches:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates the emission light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength) and a data processor that outputs an emission light spectrum of the emission light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, spectral interferogram is converted into an electric signal by the detector and is transmitted to control electronics 518 for processing)
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the emission light spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 21.
The Office further notes that having welding parameters be adjusted based on a detected location of a defect is known in the art as evidenced by Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object by using a camera (Paragraph 126, user defines the location of a weld seam by means of a camera)
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object by analyzing a reflection intensity or a reflectance of the analysis light based on an intensity of the signal light and associating the coordinates of the processing position of the object with the reflection intensity or the reflectance.
Huonker (US 20060006156 A1) teaches a laser welding method and apparatus, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object by analyzing a reflection intensity or a reflectance of the analysis light based on an intensity of the signal light (reflection intensity; Paragraph 24, light sensitive detection units are used to monitor the welding defects; Paragraphs 5-8, detects detect the processing zone at different wavelengths and the reflected laser radiation is detected including intensity of the reflected radiation wherein if a signal limit is exceeded a welding defect is detected and registered; Paragraph 19, position of the detected defective welding is determined and stored in a storage medium) and associating the coordinates of the processing position of the object with the reflection intensity or the reflectance (reflection intensity; Paragraphs 17-18 and 27, position of the error of the seam is corrected with new position by adjusting the parameters of the laser processing; Paragraph 28, location of the welding defects are used when repairing defects; Paragraph 19, position of the detected defective welding is determined and stored in a storage medium).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Huonker and have the analyzer adjust the laser processing parameters based on the coordinates of the processing position of the object. This would have been done to facilitate the detection of welding defects and to minimize the occurrence of rejects in laser welding (Huonker Paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1), Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), and WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 13, wherein:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraph 70, input parameters for each tested weld combination are stored within the database),
the data processor:
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object (Paragraph 81, waveform is selected from a database of waveforms which is determined to work with similar material combination and input parameters; Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Figure 12, position relative to the weld junction in combination with the point # can reasonably be interpreted as a coordinate being obtained by the camera)
Hallasch further teaches:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraphs 26-27, evaluation device 20 has access to a database),
the database stores a data set of reflection for respective materials (Paragraph 27, reference data for the reflectance of different material types and/or surface conditions may be stored in a database), and
the data processor:
compares the reflection obtained from the signal light with the data set of the reflection spectrums stored in the database (Paragraph 27, evaluation device is configured to compare the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece and compare the reflectance with reference data for different material types);
determines which of the materials stored in the database a material at the coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Paragraph 27, on the basis of a comparison it is possible to determine that material type or surface condition with comes closest to the values determined during the analysis of the image); and
adjusts the one or more processing conditions according to the material determined (Paragraph 47, access of the database is for the selection and adjustment of processing parameters)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data set is a data set of reflection spectrums
Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1) teaches a material identification employing a grating spectrometer, wherein:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraph 31, correlation module 30 receives spectra data from the spectrometer 10 and is in communication with a library 20)
the database stores a data set of reflection spectrums for respective materials (Column 44-51, comparison is performed with relation to a spectrum library wherein a plurality of spectrums is stored), and
the data processor:
compares the reflection spectrum obtained from the signal light with the data set of the reflection spectrums stored in the database (Column 5 Lines 51-55, obtained spectra is compared with the spectra stored in the spectra library);
determines which of the materials stored in the database a material at the coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Column 5 Lines 62-65, identification of the material is achieved wherein the result of said identification is output)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Gornushkin and compared the detected spectra with that stored in a spectra library. This would have been done to facilitate identification of the material of the object (Gornushkin Column 5 Lines 62-65).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1), Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), and Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of OGATA (US 20170304942 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 17.
Dorsch further teaches:
the solid-state imaging element (Column 3 Lines 47-50, single camera with dual bandpass filter in beam path is used to transmit visible radiation in one range and NIR radiation in another range which are captured in different zones on the detector surface of the camera) includes at least a first filter that transmits a third wavelength, a first pixel provided with the first filter (camera 5a), a second filter that transmits a fourth wavelength, and a second pixel provided with the second filter (camera 5b; Column 5 Lines 34-39, the respective beam paths 6 and 9 include filters which are used to transmit part of the process light and to reject process light outside of the spectral ranges; those ranges would include a third and fourth wavelength respectively). It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 17.
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object by comparing pixel signal intensities at the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the signal light at the processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image generated by the solid- state imaging element
OGATA (US 20170304942 A1) teaches a direct diode laser processing apparatus, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object by comparing pixel signal intensities at the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the signal light at the processing position of the object (Paragraph 33, monitoring unit 73 compares the evaluated wavelength profile with the normal-state wavelength profile and makes a determination on an output decrease when the intensity of one wavelength is set outside an allowable range)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with OGATA and the processor adjust processing conditions by comparing each of the wavelength profiles of the lasers with that of a normal-state wavelength profile. This would have been done to ensure that the lasers are operating within a predetermined normal-state range (OGATA Paragraph 33).
While OGATA does not explicitly teach comparing the intensities “in the two-dimensional image generated by the solid- state imaging element”, Column 3 Lines 47-50 of Dorsch teaches of using a single camera with a bandpass filter to transmit light intensities at different wavelengths which are captured in different zones on the detector surface of the camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when further modifying with OGATA to have had the single camera further detect reflections the respective wavelengths of the lasers in their own individual regions of a single image such as to ensure that the lasers are operating within a predetermined normal-state range (OGATA Paragraph 33) without requiring the use of additional sensor equipment.
Regarding claim 19, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 18.
Dorsch further teaches:
the first filter transmits near-infrared light (Column 5 Lines 23-39, bandpass filters are used to transmit the light in the appropriate spectral range wherein the camera 5b captures radiation in the near infrared range), and the second filter transmits wavelengths of at least part of a visible light range (Column 5 Lines 23-39, bandpass filters are used to transmit the light in the appropriate spectral range wherein the camera 5a captures radiation in the visible light range).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 17.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of ZHOU (US 20210039200 A1), Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), Dorsch (US 8890023 B2), and OGATA (US 20170304942 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 18, comprising:
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object (Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Paragraph 103, the power of the laser is adjusted based on the location of the laser beam on the weld; Paragraph 56, intensity profile of the waveform is used to weld the two materials together)
Hallasch further teaches:
determines which of materials stored in the database a material at coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Paragraph 27, evaluation device is configured to compare the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece and compare the reflectance with reference data for different material types; Paragraph 27, on the basis of a comparison it is possible to determine that material type or surface condition with comes closest to the values determined during the analysis of the image)
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object according to the material determined (Paragraph 47, access of the database is for the selection and adjustment of processing parameters).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the data processor: compares each of pixel signal intensities at the third wavelength and the fourth wavelength of the signal light at the processing position with a data set of reflection spectrums stored in a database;
Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1) teaches a material identification employing a grating spectrometer, wherein:
compares each of pixel signal intensities at the third wavelength and the fourth wavelength of the signal light at the processing position with a data set of reflection spectrums stored in a database (Column 5 Lines 51-55, obtained spectra is compared with the spectra stored in the spectra library which would include a plurality of wavelengths);
determines which of materials stored in the database a material at coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Column 5 Lines 62-65, identification of the material is achieved wherein the result of said identification is output);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Gornushkin and compared the detected spectra with that stored in a spectra library. This would have been done to facilitate identification of the material of the object (Gornushkin Column 5 Lines 62-65).
It would further have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention when modifying Mudd with Gornushkin to have adjusted the processing conditions based on the detected spectra. This is because Paragraph 27 of Hallasch and Paragraph 99 of Mudd already teaches adjusting parameters based on the material type and Paragraph 9 of Hallasch teaches that of determining the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece for a plurality of different wavelengths of the illuminating radiation, and to put the respective reflectances into relation with one another (relative reflection) to determine the surface condition and/or the material type. Column 5 Lines 51-65 of Gornushkin explicitly teaches using a spectra, which include a plurality of wavelengths, to determine a material of an object and thus would be useful to Hallasch in the adjusting of parameters based on material type.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) teaches a laser processing device that processes an object including two or more types of materials using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 47, laser beam welds two dissimilar materials including a high melting point material 12 and low melting point material 14), the laser processing device comprising:
a drive controller that drives the first laser (Figure 8 Paragraph 49, system control PC 40 is used to define the shape of each pulse and the pulse repetition rate);
an analyzer that obtains material information about the two or more types of materials (Paragraph 81, user inputs a material type for each material such as mild steel and nickel for the two materials), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information about the two or more types of materials (Paragraph 81, program automatically pre-selects values for surface finish, width of weld, weld time, weld overlap, and pulse shape based on indicated materials), wherein
the drive controller drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Figures 7 and 24-27 Paragraph 99, system suggests an appropriate waveform to use based on the material type input parameter wherein the waveform includes adjusting the laser output power; Paragraph 103, the power of the laser is adjusted based on the location of the laser beam on the weld),
the object includes a first part made of a first material and a second part made of a second material different than the first material (Figure 1 Paragraph 47, laser beam welds two dissimilar materials including a high melting point material 12 and low melting point material 14), and
the processing device is configured such that the laser beam scans the object along a lateral direction in which the first part and the second part are arranged (Figures 5-6 Paragraph 53, laser beam is swept from 56A to 56B in a lateral direction in which the material 12 and material 14 are located).
Mudd fails to teach:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength;
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength;
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator; and
an analyzer that obtains material information about the two or more types of materials by analyzing signal light from the two or more types of materials included in the object, and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information about the two or more types of materials, wherein
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator
CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1) teaches an apparatus of laser-processing used to carry out laser welding (Paragraph 26), comprising:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength (Paragraph 64, laser source 12 with a source);
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Paragraph 64, laser source 14 with a source and wavelength different from the first laser source 12);
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 70, laser sources 12 and 14 are controlled via control unit 30); and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 70, laser sources 12 and 14 are controlled via control unit 30)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with CALEFATI and used two laser beams with different peak wavelengths to process the different materials. This would have been done such as to use the first laser to process materials with high reflectivity while using the second laser to process materials of a low reflectivity to safeguard the optical component of the apparatus from damage due to undesired reflections (CALEFATI Paragraph 26).
Mudd modified with CALEFATI fails to teach:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the two or more types of materials by analyzing signal light from the two or more types of materials included in the object, and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information about the two or more types of materials, wherein
Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) teaches of an apparatus for determining a material type and/or a surface condition of a workpiece, wherein:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the material by analyzing signal light from the object (Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information (Paragraph 7, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), wherein
drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity3 (Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power) of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 18, computer program product which carries out all the steps of the method described previously in the prior art; Paragraph 17, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece which changes the parameters to the selected parameters; Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power; Paragraph 33, laser beam 2 strikes at a focal point F on an upper side of the workpiece 4).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Hallasch and have an analyzer obtain information of the type of material of the workpiece and adjust parameters based on the type of material. This would have been done to such as to identify the material type of a workpiece to adapt processing parameters (Hallasch Paragraph 3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art when modifying Mudd with Hallasch to have detected each of the different materials 12 and 14 with the analyzer. This would be done as Paragraph 81 of Mudd teaches that the user selects a different material for each of the two materials and Paragraph 99 of Mudd further teaches that said information is used determine an appropriate waveform to use wherein said waveform includes adjusting the laser output power.
Regarding claim 2, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
CALEFATI further teaches:
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions (Paragraph 70, laser sources 12 and 14 are controlled via control unit 30) to cause the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator to emit one of the first laser beam and the second laser beam and not emit an other of the first laser beam and the second laser beam (Paragraph 26, first laser and second laser are used in an alternative and not necessarily simultaneously way to treat the materials; while example is directed toward additive manufacturing, the benefit of safeguarding the properties of the optical components from undesired reflections is applicable to welding).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
Hallasch further teaches:
the analyzer includes a data processor that analyzes the signal light (Paragraph 26, evaluation device configured to determine the material type based on reflectance of the surface).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 3, wherein:
the analyzer adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to coordinates of a processing position of the object by analyzing the signal light, the coordinates being obtained when the signal light is obtained (Figure 12 Paragraphs 125-127, superimposing the laser seam path on top of a camera image of the workpiece; Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Figure 12, position relative to the weld junction in combination with the point # can reasonably be interpreted as a coordinate being obtained by the camera; Hallasch Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece; Figures 7 and 24-27 Paragraph 99, system suggests an appropriate waveform to use based on the material type of each workpiece which reasonably includes information regarding coordinates of the workpieces and the junction), and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions to cause the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator to irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam based on the coordinates of the processing position (Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Paragraph 103, the power of the laser is adjusted based on the location of the laser beam on the weld; Paragraph 56, intensity profile of the waveform is used to weld the two materials together).
The Office further notes that storing locations of defects in combination with processing parameters and controlling repair welding to fix those defects is known in the art as evidenced by Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having the analyzer adjust processing parameters instead of the user manually adjusting a waveform is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the signal light (Hallasch Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece; Paragraph 127, weld seam coordinates are defined through a camera; Figures 7 and 24-27 Paragraph 99, system suggests an appropriate waveform to use based on the material type of each workpiece which reasonably includes information regarding coordinates of the workpieces and the junction; Paragraphs 59-61, output intensity of the laser is varied according to the specified intensity profile depending on distance of laser from the junction wherein the starting and ending coordinates for each move are stored and used).
Regarding claim 6, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Hallasch further teaches:
the analyzer includes:
a light source that emits analysis light (Paragraph 36, illuminating device 15); and
an optical system that irradiates the processing position of the object with the analysis light (Paragraph 36, illumination device 15 outputs illumination light which passes through optical elements to reach the workpiece), and
the signal light is at least part of the analysis light reflected by a surface of the object (Paragraph 45, reflectance of various illuminating radiation 17 is used to determine material types).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the light source of the analysis light is a laser oscillator or a light-emitting diode (LED) (Paragraph 15, illumination source of the illumination device may be a diode laser).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) teaches a laser processing device that processes an object including two or more types of materials using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 47, laser beam welds two dissimilar materials including a high melting point material 12 and low melting point material 14), the laser processing device comprising:
a drive controller that drives the laser beam (Figure 8 Paragraph 49, system control PC 40 is used to define the shape of each pulse and the pulse repetition rate)
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object (Paragraph 81, user inputs a material type such as mild steel and nickel for the two materials), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained (Paragraph 81, program automatically pre-selects values for surface finish, width of weld, weld time, weld overlap, and pulse shape based on indicated materials), wherein
according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 39, characteristics of the assist laser beam 111 and the process laser beam 121 are different but complimentary and depend on the type of material as well as the type of processing application; Paragraph 71, the type of first laser beam used depends on the materials).
Mudd fails to explicitly teach:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength;
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength;
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator; and
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator
the drive controller switches between the first laser beam and the second laser beam at a position where a material of the object changes.
CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1) teaches an apparatus of laser-processing used to carry out laser welding (Paragraph 26), comprising:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength (Paragraph 64, laser source 12 with a source);
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Paragraph 64, laser source 14 with a source and wavelength different from the first laser source 12);
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 70, laser sources 12 and 14 are controlled via control unit 30); and
the drive controller switches between the first laser beam and the second laser beam at a position where a material of the object changes (Paragraph 26, the first source is configured for treating materials with high reflectivity and the second source is configured for material with low reflectivity wherein the lasers are used in an alternative and not necessarily simultaneous way; The Office further notes that it is well known in the art that when laser welding shifts from a region made of one material to a region made of a different material, the welding conditions need to be changed as evidenced by Paragraph 98 of URASHIMA (US 20120285936 A1); one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have switched between the first and second laser beam at a position where a material of the object changes such as to minimize undesired reflections and thus safeguard the properties of the optical components of the apparatus).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with CALEFATI and used two laser beams with different peak wavelengths to process the different materials. This would have been done such as to use the first laser to process materials with high reflectivity while using the second laser to process materials of a low reflectivity to safeguard the optical component of the apparatus from damage due to undesired reflections (CALEFATI Paragraph 26).
Mudd modified with CALEFATI fails to teach:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object, and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained
Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) teaches of an apparatus for determining a material type and/or a surface condition of a workpiece, wherein:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object (Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained (Paragraph 7, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece)
the drive controller drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the adjustor to change an intensity4 (Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power) of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or second laser beam (Paragraph 18, computer program product which carries out all the steps of the method described previously in the prior art; Paragraph 17, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece which changes the parameters to the selected parameters; Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power; Paragraph 33, laser beam 2 strikes at a focal point F on an upper side of the workpiece 4).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Hallasch and have an analyzer obtain information of the type of material of the workpiece and adjust parameters based on the type of material. This would have been done to such as to identify the material type of a workpiece to adapt processing parameters (Hallasch Paragraph 3)
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) as applied to claims 6 and 1 above, and further in view of Dorsch (US 8890023 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the signal light includes second signal light (Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are used to determine the reflectance or the reflection intensity of the surface), the second signal light being the second analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object (Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are used to determine the reflectance or the reflection intensity of the surface), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions by comparing an intensity of the first signal light with an intensity of the second signal light at the coordinates of the processing position of the object, or comparing a reflectance at the first wavelength with a reflectance at the second wavelength at the coordinates of the processing position of the object (comparing a reflectance; Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are compared such as further discriminate between different material types and surface conditions wherein the reflectance at different wavelengths may be used as a further discriminating criterion between different material types and/or surface conditions; Paragraph 16, illuminating radiation is irradiated onto the surface coaxially with a high-energy beam laser for processing the workpiece and thus would be at the coordinate of the processing position of the workpiece).
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the analysis light includes first analysis light of the first wavelength and the analysis light includes second analysis light of the second wavelength
the first signal light being the first analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verify seam quality during a laser welding process, comprising:
the analysis light includes first analysis light of the first wavelength and second analysis light of the second wavelength (Column 5 Lines 23-39, first camera captures radiation in a first wavelength range in a visible light range and second camera captures radiation in a second wavelength range in a near infrared range),
the signal light includes first signal light and second signal light, the first signal light being the first analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object, the second signal light being the second analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object (Column 5 Lines 23-39, a beam path of the CMOS camera 5a is reflected onto the workpiece surface in an area surrounding the laser beam and the beam path of the CMOS camera 5b is also reflected onto the workpiece surface in an area surrounding the laser beam), and
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors detecting the first and second wavelength. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 11, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object (Paragraph 45, reflectance of various illuminating radiation 17 is used to determine material types)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes a first detector and a second detector,
the first detector receives the signal light, the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object,
the second detector receives at least part of the analysis light, and
the data processor corrects an intensity of the signal light received by the first detector with an intensity of the analysis light received by the second detector.
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verifying a seam quality during a laser welding process, wherein:
the analyzer includes a first detector and a second detector (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b), the first detector receives the signal light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges), the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object (Paragraph 6, illumination is reflected back into the observation direction from the surface of the workpiece),
the second detector receives at least part of the analysis light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges), and
the data processor corrects an intensity of the signal light received by the first detector with an intensity of the analysis light received by the second detector (Column 6 Lines 46-63, the two spectral ranges are logically combined in order to assess seam quality).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors each receiving a part of the analysis light wherein the intensity of the signal received by the first detector is corrected by the light of the second detector. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 17, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light (Paragraph 127, camera is used to capture an image of the materials; camera consists of a two-dimensional array of pixels which receive light)
the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light (Paragraph 65, resulting image of camera is output to a display 70 on the control PC 40)
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light, the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light, and the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object according to a brightness corresponding to a processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image.
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verify seam quality during a laser welding process, comprising:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges; cameras have pixels which capture light),
the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light (Column 6 Lines 21-30, cameras 5a and 5b are used as a detector in an image processing computer via an external control unit)
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object according to a brightness corresponding to a processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image (Column 3 Lines 17-23, method includes improving the seam quality by modifying parameters of the laser welding process such that the seam quality again falls within tolerance intervals; Column 6 Lines 17-21, intensity of the light irradiated onto the respective faces are evaluated by an evaluation device including the position of the focal spot relative to the joint)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors each receiving a part of the analysis light wherein the intensity of the signal received by the first detector is corrected by the light of the second detector. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) as applied to claims 6, 4, and 1 above respectively, and further in view of WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6. Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analysis light includes a wavelength of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analysis light includes a wavelength of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample which is a byproduct of irradiating the object with a laser beam).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer and use the laser beam as the imaging light source. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 9, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 8.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analysis light is produced by guiding part of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam, and the light source of the analyzer is a light source of the first laser oscillator or a light source of the second laser oscillator.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analysis light is produced by guiding part of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam, and the light source of the analyzer is a light source of the first laser oscillator or a light source of the second laser oscillator (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample which is a byproduct of irradiating the object with a laser beam).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer and use the laser beam as the imaging light source. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 12, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates analysis light, the analysis light separated by the spectrometer irradiates the processing position of the object, the analyzer includes a detector that measures the signal light to measure a reflection spectrum, the signal light being the analysis light separated by the spectrometer and reflected by a surface of the object, the reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light, and the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates analysis light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, light is dispersed according to its wavelength in the spectrometer),
the analysis light separated by the spectrometer irradiates the processing position of the object (Paragraph 343, sample light backscattered off the workpiece is injected into the fiber connected to the high-speed spectrometer),
the analyzer includes a detector that measures the signal light to measure a reflection spectrum (Figure 3 Paragraph 255, photodetector array 118 detects the laser), the signal light being the analysis light separated by the spectrometer (Paragraph 343, light is dispersed according to its wavelength in the spectrometer) and reflected by a surface of the object (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample), the reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 13, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes:
a spectrometer that separates the signal light; and
a detector that measures the signal light separated by the spectrometer to measure a reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light, and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analyzer includes:
a spectrometer that separates the signal light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, light is dispersed according to its wavelength in the spectrometer); and
a detector that measures the signal light separated by the spectrometer to measure a reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, spectrometer outputs electronic signal converted by the detector to a control electronic 518), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 21, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the signal light is emission light produced during the processing as a byproduct of irradiating the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the signal light is emission light produced during the processing as a byproduct of irradiating the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample which is a byproduct of irradiating the object with a laser beam)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer and use the laser beam as the imaging light source. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 22, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 21.
Webster further teaches:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates the emission light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength) and a data processor that outputs an emission light spectrum of the emission light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, spectral interferogram is converted into an electric signal by the detector and is transmitted to control electronics 518 for processing)
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the emission light spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 21.
The Office further notes that having welding parameters be adjusted based on a detected location of a defect is known in the art as evidenced by Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1) and Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object by using a camera (Paragraph 126, user defines the location of a weld seam by means of a camera)
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object by analyzing a reflection intensity or a reflectance of the analysis light based on an intensity of the signal light and associating the coordinates of the processing position of the object with the reflection intensity or the reflectance.
Huonker (US 20060006156 A1) teaches a laser welding method and apparatus, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object by analyzing a reflection intensity or a reflectance of the analysis light based on an intensity of the signal light (reflection intensity; Paragraph 24, light sensitive detection units are used to monitor the welding defects; Paragraphs 5-8, detects detect the processing zone at different wavelengths and the reflected laser radiation is detected including intensity of the reflected radiation wherein if a signal limit is exceeded a welding defect is detected and registered; Paragraph 19, position of the detected defective welding is determined and stored in a storage medium) and associating the coordinates of the processing position of the object with the reflection intensity or the reflectance (reflection intensity; Paragraphs 17-18 and 27, position of the error of the seam is corrected with new position by adjusting the parameters of the laser processing; Paragraph 28, location of the welding defects are used when repairing defects; Paragraph 19, position of the detected defective welding is determined and stored in a storage medium).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Huonker and have the analyzer adjust the laser processing parameters based on the coordinates of the processing position of the object. This would have been done to facilitate the detection of welding defects and to minimize the occurrence of rejects in laser welding (Huonker Paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1), Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), and WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 13, wherein:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraph 70, input parameters for each tested weld combination are stored within the database),
the data processor:
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object (Paragraph 81, waveform is selected from a database of waveforms which is determined to work with similar material combination and input parameters; Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Figure 12, position relative to the weld junction in combination with the point # can reasonably be interpreted as a coordinate being obtained by the camera)
Hallasch further teaches:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraphs 26-27, evaluation device 20 has access to a database),
the database stores a data set of reflection for respective materials (Paragraph 27, reference data for the reflectance of different material types and/or surface conditions may be stored in a database), and
the data processor:
compares the reflection obtained from the signal light with the data set of the reflection spectrums stored in the database (Paragraph 27, evaluation device is configured to compare the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece and compare the reflectance with reference data for different material types);
determines which of the materials stored in the database a material at the coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Paragraph 27, on the basis of a comparison it is possible to determine that material type or surface condition with comes closest to the values determined during the analysis of the image); and
adjusts the one or more processing conditions according to the material determined (Paragraph 47, access of the database is for the selection and adjustment of processing parameters)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data set is a data set of reflection spectrums
Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1) teaches a material identification employing a grating spectrometer, wherein:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraph 31, correlation module 30 receives spectra data from the spectrometer 10 and is in communication with a library 20)
the database stores a data set of reflection spectrums for respective materials (Column 44-51, comparison is performed with relation to a spectrum library wherein a plurality of spectrums is stored), and
the data processor:
compares the reflection spectrum obtained from the signal light with the data set of the reflection spectrums stored in the database (Column 5 Lines 51-55, obtained spectra is compared with the spectra stored in the spectra library);
determines which of the materials stored in the database a material at the coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Column 5 Lines 62-65, identification of the material is achieved wherein the result of said identification is output)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Gornushkin and compared the detected spectra with that stored in a spectra library. This would have been done to facilitate identification of the material of the object (Gornushkin Column 5 Lines 62-65).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1), Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), and Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of OGATA (US 20170304942 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 17.
Dorsch further teaches:
the solid-state imaging element (Column 3 Lines 47-50, single camera with dual bandpass filter in beam path is used to transmit visible radiation in one range and NIR radiation in another range which are captured in different zones on the detector surface of the camera) includes at least a first filter that transmits a third wavelength, a first pixel provided with the first filter (camera 5a), a second filter that transmits a fourth wavelength, and a second pixel provided with the second filter (camera 5b; Column 5 Lines 34-39, the respective beam paths 6 and 9 include filters which are used to transmit part of the process light and to reject process light outside of the spectral ranges; those ranges would include a third and fourth wavelength respectively). It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 17.
Mudd as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object by comparing pixel signal intensities at the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the signal light at the processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image generated by the solid- state imaging element
OGATA (US 20170304942 A1) teaches a direct diode laser processing apparatus, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object by comparing pixel signal intensities at the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the signal light at the processing position of the object (Paragraph 33, monitoring unit 73 compares the evaluated wavelength profile with the normal-state wavelength profile and makes a determination on an output decrease when the intensity of one wavelength is set outside an allowable range)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with OGATA and the processor adjust processing conditions by comparing each of the wavelength profiles of the lasers with that of a normal-state wavelength profile. This would have been done to ensure that the lasers are operating within a predetermined normal-state range (OGATA Paragraph 33).
While OGATA does not explicitly teach comparing the intensities “in the two-dimensional image generated by the solid- state imaging element”, Column 3 Lines 47-50 of Dorsch teaches of using a single camera with a bandpass filter to transmit light intensities at different wavelengths which are captured in different zones on the detector surface of the camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when further modifying with OGATA to have had the single camera further detect reflections the respective wavelengths of the lasers in their own individual regions of a single image such as to ensure that the lasers are operating within a predetermined normal-state range (OGATA Paragraph 33) without requiring the use of additional sensor equipment.
Regarding claim 19, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 18.
Dorsch further teaches:
the first filter transmits near-infrared light (Column 5 Lines 23-39, bandpass filters are used to transmit the light in the appropriate spectral range wherein the camera 5b captures radiation in the near infrared range), and the second filter transmits wavelengths of at least part of a visible light range (Column 5 Lines 23-39, bandpass filters are used to transmit the light in the appropriate spectral range wherein the camera 5a captures radiation in the visible light range).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 17.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudd (US 20160016261 A1) in view of CALEFATI (US 20220314366 A1), Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), Dorsch (US 8890023 B2), and OGATA (US 20170304942 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mudd as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 18, comprising:
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object (Paragraphs 98-99, waveform of the pulse is spread across the welding junction with the laser power shown on the vertical axis and the position of the laser beam relative to the weld junction on the horizontal axis; Paragraph 103, the power of the laser is adjusted based on the location of the laser beam on the weld; Paragraph 56, intensity profile of the waveform is used to weld the two materials together)
Hallasch further teaches:
determines which of materials stored in the database a material at coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Paragraph 27, evaluation device is configured to compare the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece and compare the reflectance with reference data for different material types; Paragraph 27, on the basis of a comparison it is possible to determine that material type or surface condition with comes closest to the values determined during the analysis of the image)
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object according to the material determined (Paragraph 47, access of the database is for the selection and adjustment of processing parameters).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Mudd as modified fails to teach:
the data processor: compares each of pixel signal intensities at the third wavelength and the fourth wavelength of the signal light at the processing position with a data set of reflection spectrums stored in a database;
Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1) teaches a material identification employing a grating spectrometer, wherein:
compares each of pixel signal intensities at the third wavelength and the fourth wavelength of the signal light at the processing position with a data set of reflection spectrums stored in a database (Column 5 Lines 51-55, obtained spectra is compared with the spectra stored in the spectra library which would include a plurality of wavelengths);
determines which of materials stored in the database a material at coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Column 5 Lines 62-65, identification of the material is achieved wherein the result of said identification is output);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mudd with Gornushkin and compared the detected spectra with that stored in a spectra library. This would have been done to facilitate identification of the material of the object (Gornushkin Column 5 Lines 62-65).
It would further have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention when modifying Mudd with Gornushkin to have adjusted the processing conditions based on the detected spectra. This is because Paragraph 27 of Hallasch and Paragraph 99 of Mudd already teaches adjusting parameters based on the material type and Paragraph 9 of Hallasch teaches that of determining the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece for a plurality of different wavelengths of the illuminating radiation, and to put the respective reflectances into relation with one another (relative reflection) to determine the surface condition and/or the material type. Column 5 Lines 51-65 of Gornushkin explicitly teaches using a spectra, which include a plurality of wavelengths, to determine a material of an object and thus would be useful to Hallasch in the adjusting of parameters based on material type.
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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 at (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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that having predetermined parameters for laser processing and adjusting parameters based on detected calibration values is known in the art as evidenced by Mori (US 20170282300 A1).
2 The Office further notes that having predetermined parameters for laser processing and adjusting parameters based on detected calibration values is known in the art as evidenced by Mori (US 20170282300 A1).
3 The Office further notes that having predetermined parameters for laser processing and adjusting parameters based on detected calibration values is known in the art as evidenced by Mori (US 20170282300 A1).
4 The Office further notes that having predetermined parameters for laser processing and adjusting parameters based on detected calibration values is known in the art as evidenced by Mori (US 20170282300 A1).
Prosecution Insights