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 05/12/2026 has been entered and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-26 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 WILLETT (US 20160139593 A1) in view of Galbraith (US 20200023461 A1) and DeFelice (US 20170312821 A1).
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) 1-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLETT (US 20160139593 A1) in view of Galbraith (US 20200023461 A1) and DeFelice (US 20170312821 A1).
Regarding claim 1, WILLETT (US 20160139593 A1) teaches a laser-processing apparatus for forming features in a workpiece (Paragraph 85, monitoring a laser welding process), the apparatus comprising:
a laser source operative to generate a beam of laser energy (Paragraph 92, beam delivery device 25 comprises a light radiation generator for generating a laser);
a scan lens arranged operative to focus the beam of laser energy such that the focused beam of laser energy is deliverable to the workpiece (Paragraphs 94-95, focal lens 41 such as to focus the laser beam onto the work position on workpiece 100);
a camera having a field of view and operative to capture imagery of an object within the field of view (Paragraph 109, cameras 20 and 21 are used to capture images per segment over the process across the workpiece 100);
and at least one sensor (Paragraph 109, sensors 20 and 21) operative to generate process control data (Paragraph 109, sensors are used to detect multiple anomalies in the process), the process control data representing at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a) at least one characteristic of the apparatus either before, during or after the workpiece is processed to form a set of features,
b) at least one characteristic of the workpiece either before, during or after the workpiece is processed to form a set of features (Paragraph 110, during processing of workpiece 100 to capture images of the workpiece during the processing), and
c) at least one characteristic of an ambient environment in which the apparatus is located either before, during or after the workpiece is processed to form a set of features; and
a controller (Figure 1 Paragraph 110, processor 5) communicatively coupled to the camera (Paragraph 107, sensors 20 and 21 providing data to processor 5 during processing of a workpiece) and one or more databases in which process control data is stored in association with auxiliary information (Paragraph 21, database comprises anomaly data associated with one or more predetermined anomalies; Paragraph 32, processing means is configured to generate comparative data related to the samples and store it in a database; Paragraph 101, user interface 10 may enable previously obtained segment data to be compared with actual segment data),
wherein the auxiliary information represents a location of each feature to be formed in the workpiece (Paragraph 103, samples N and segments S can be traced back to specific positions on the workpiece or time stamps in the process; Paragraph 25, plurality of samples are associated with each segment wherein each segment comprise at least one of an image), and
wherein the controller is operative to execute, or facilitate execution of, a candidate feature selection process (Paragraphs 124-125, processor 5 identifies process zones within a sample N) whereby:
process control data is processed to estimate whether any of the features formed in the workpiece are defective (Figures 4D-4E Paragraphs 129-134, image numbers and quality for each number are graphed to determine whether each segment or image number is defective or not);
the location of any feature estimated to be defective is identified (Figures 4D-4F Paragraph 134, the location and segment of spatter occurrences are graphed such that the processor 5 is used to determine a state of the processing indicating that a particular part of workpiece 100 is unacceptably assembled and process state deemed failed)
to analyze the image data, generated by the camera, to determine if the feature is defective (Paragraphs 123 and 129, processor 5 during the image processing step is used to identify blobs within sample N and uses comparisons between images to provide information related to blobs; Figures 4D-4F Paragraph 134, the location and segment of spatter occurrences are graphed such that the processor 5 is used to determine a state of the processing indicating that a particular part of workpiece 100 is unacceptably assembled and process state deemed failed)
WILLETT fails to explicitly teach:
at least one beam positioner arranged between the laser source and the scan lens, the at least one beam positioner operative to scan the focused beam of laser energy relative to the workpiece within a scanning range projected onto the workpiece by the scan lens;
at least one stage operative to impart relative movement between the workpiece and at least one selected from the group consisting of the scan lens and the camera;
a controller communicatively coupled to the at least one stage,
wherein, after the location of any feature estimated to be defective is identified, the controller is operative to direct the camera to the identified location to capture image data of the feature estimated to be defective.
Galbraith (US 20200023461 A1) teaches a system and method for monitoring and controlling laser welding, wherein:
at least one beam positioner arranged between the laser source and the scan lens (Figure 1, movable mirrors 132 and 134 are located between the laser 112 and the lens 142), the at least one beam positioner operative to scan the focused beam of laser energy relative to the workpiece within a scanning range projected onto the workpiece by the scan lens (Paragraph 36, movable mirrors 132 and 143 are pivotable about different axis to cause the laser beam 116 to move relative to the workpiece 102 in two different perpendicular axes);
at least one stage operative to impart relative movement between the workpiece and at least one selected from the group consisting of the scan lens and the camera (Paragraph 33, motion stage 114 for translating the welding head 110 relative to the workpiece; Paragraph 47, camera is coupled to the welding head; Figure 1, lenses 142 are located within welding head);
a controller communicatively coupled to the at least one stage (Paragraph 43, control system 160 for controlling the motion stage),
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 WILLETT with Galbraith and have a controller control a stage and beam positioner. This would be done to move the welding head and workpiece relative to each other in the direction of the welding seam (Galbraith Paragraph 33).
WILLETT modified Galbraith with fails to explicitly teach:
wherein, after the location of any feature estimated to be defective is identified, the controller is operative to direct the camera to the identified location to capture image data of the feature estimated to be defective.
DeFelice (US 20170312821 A1) teaches a metal AM process involving welding layers with an in situ inspection, wherein:
after the location of any feature estimated to be defective is identified, the controller is operative to direct the camera to the identified location to capture image data of the feature estimated to be defective (Paragraph 52, the inspection controller will identify the location of the defect in the part 102 and may save this information in the storage unit 132 once a defect is detected by the inspection tool 112; Paragraph 52, the inspection controller 170 may re-inspect this location using the same inspection tool 112 to verify that indeed a defect is present; Paragraph 27, inspection tool comprises a digital camera).
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 WILLETT with DeFelice and have the controller direct the camera to the identified location to recapture the location. This would be done to re-inspect this location to verify that indeed a defect is present (DeFelice Paragraph 52).
The Office further notes that having a camera detect a position of a defect, and then run another pass over the location of a defect after an attempt at repair, is known in the art as evidenced by Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1).
Regarding claim 2, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the controller is operative to execute at least a portion of the candidate selection process (Paragraphs 124-125, processor 5 identifies process zones within a sample N).
Regarding claim 3, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising
a communications module communicatively coupled to the controller and operative to transmit data (Paragraph 96, user interface comprises an input and output device including smart phones, tablets, and PCs which is connected to the processor such as to provide a user interface).
The Office notes that a single device such as a smart phones, tablets, or PC can reasonably serve as the controller, remote system, and communications module. However, the Office further notes that having a dedicated processor or control device which is then connected to a remote device such as a computer wherein the two devices are separate is known in the art of laser welding as evidence by MOHRI (US 20220118559 A1). Furthermore, the Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of one-piece construction instead of a separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B.
Regarding claim 4, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the controller is operative to transmit an output of the candidate selection process to a remote system through the communications module (Paragraph 96, user interface comprises an input and output device including smart phones, tablets, and PCs which is connected to the processor such as to provide a user interface; Paragraph 51, complete collection of samples is saved on a cloud drive; Paragraph 54, segment data and images can be readily retrieved, displayed, and exported to reports; Paragraph 51, complete collection of samples is saved on a cloud drive).
The Office notes that a single device such as a smart phones, tablets, or PC can reasonably serve as the controller, remote system, and communications module. However, the Office further notes that having a dedicated processor or control device which is then connected to a remote device such as a computer wherein the two devices are separate is known in the art of laser welding as evidence by MOHRI (US 20220118559 A1). Furthermore, the Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of one-piece construction instead of a separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B.
Regarding claim 5, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein
the remote system is a remote inspection system and wherein the output of the candidate selection process is in a format readable by the remote inspection system (Paragraph 96, user interface comprises an input and output device including smart phones, tablets, and PCs which is connected to the processor such as to provide a user interface; Paragraph 51, complete collection of samples is saved on a cloud drive; Paragraph 54, segment data and images can be readily retrieved, displayed, and exported to reports).
Regarding claim 6, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the controller is operative to facilitate execution of the candidate feature selection process by transmitting at least a portion of the process control data to a remote system through the communications module (Paragraph 49, user can configure at least one of the number of segments and a statistical state associated with a physical defect; Paragraph 100, user interface allows for selection of predefined statistical testing methods and/or definition of a new statistical testing method to be applied as well as setting the parameters thereof; Paragraph 126, user may set certain thresholds related to defect identification and/or such thresholds may be determined by processor 5).
Regarding claim 7, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
the remote system includes at least one computing system (Paragraph 96, user interface comprises an input and output device including smart phones, tablets, and PCs which is connected to the processor such as to provide a user interface).
Regarding claim 8, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the communications module is operative to receive data and wherein the controller is operative to receive an output of at least a portion of the candidate feature selection process from the remote system through the communications module (Paragraph 49, user can configure at least one of the number of segments and a statistical state associated with a physical defect; Paragraph 100, user interface allows for selection of predefined statistical testing methods and/or definition of a new statistical testing method to be applied as well as setting the parameters thereof; Paragraph 126, user may set certain thresholds related to defect identification and/or such thresholds may be determined by processor 5).
Regarding claim 9, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 3, further comprising
at least one of the one or more databases (Paragraph 21, system can include a database).
Regarding claim 10, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the controller is operative to transmit at least a portion of the process control data to at least one of the one or more databases through the communications module (Paragraph 51, complete collection of samples is saved on a cloud drive; Paragraph 53, image features detected in each image is stored in a database).
Regarding claim 11, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the field of view of the camera is within a scan field projectable by the scan lens onto the workpiece (Figure 1 Paragraph 93, light reflected from position X travels towards one or more sensors through focal lens 41).
Regarding claim 12, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the field of view of the camera is not the same as the scan lens onto the workpiece (Figure 1 Paragraph 95, camera 21 is positioned at an angle offset from a workpiece 100 which means that the field of view of the camera would not be the same as the scan field).
GRAPOV further teaches:
the field of view of the camera is at least partially outside a scan field projectable by the scan lens onto the workpiece (Paragraphs 44 and 49, camera 150 is used to detect the seam 104)
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 WILLETT with GRAPOV and have a camera scan to detect the seam of the workpiece. This would be done such as to correct the position of the focused beam to follow the seam (GRAPOV Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 13, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
GRAPOV further teaches:
a frame arranged to support the scan lens relative to the workpiece (Paragraph 37, focus lens 142 is provided in separate modules 140 within welding head 110 which is positioned relative to the workpiece), wherein the scan lens is coupled to the frame (Paragraph 37, focus lens 142 is provided in separate modules 140 within welding head 110).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
GRAPOV further teaches:
the camera is coupled to the scan lens (Paragraph 33, motion stage 114 for translating the welding head 110 relative to the workpiece; Paragraph 47, camera is coupled to the welding head; Figure 1, lenses 142 are located within welding head; both the camera and the scan lens are connected through the welding head)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
GRAPOV further teaches:
the camera is coupled to the frame (Paragraph 33, motion stage 114 for translating the welding head 110 relative to the workpiece; Paragraph 47, camera is coupled to the welding head; Figure 1, lenses 142 are located within welding head; both the camera and the scan lens are connected through the welding head).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
GRAPOV further teaches:
an inspection support (welding head 110) arranged to support the camera relative to the workpiece, wherein the camera is coupled to the inspection support (Paragraph 33, motion stage 114 for translating the welding head 110 relative to the workpiece; Paragraph 47, camera is coupled to the welding head; Figure 1, lenses 142 are located within welding head; both the camera and the scan lens are connected through the welding head).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
GRAPOV further teaches:
a stage coupled to the inspection support (Paragraph 35, welding head 110 is located in a motion stage 114) and operative to the move inspection support relative to the workpiece (Paragraph 33, motion stage 114 for translating the welding head 110 relative to the workpiece; Paragraph 47, camera is coupled to the welding head; Figure 1, lenses 142 are located within welding head; both the camera and the scan lens are connected through the welding head).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the controller is further operative to control an operation of the camera to effect an inspection operation of each identified location (Paragraph 99, user controls the parameters to be applied to each sensor).
GRAPOV further teaches:
the controller is further operative to control an operation of the at least one stage to effect an inspection operation of each identified location (Paragraphs 44 and 49, camera 150 is used to detect the seam 104 in which the control system moves the position of the beam such as to follow the seam to perform the weld).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the controller is further operative control an operation of the at least one stage and the camera based on user input received at the user interface to effect an inspection operation of each identified location (camera; Paragraph 99, user controls the parameters to be applied to each sensor).
The Office further notes that controlling the operation of a stage based on user input received at the user interface is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 33 of MOHRI (US 20220118559 A1).
Regarding claim 23, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the controller is further operative control an operation of the at least one stage and the camera based data received from a remote system through the communications module to effect an inspection operation of each identified location (camera; Paragraph 99, user controls the parameters to be applied to each sensor; Paragraph 96, user interface comprises an input and output device including smart phones, tablets, and PCs which is connected to the processor such as to provide a user interface).
The Office notes that a single device such as a smart phones, tablets, or PC can reasonably serve as the controller, remote system, and communications module. However, the Office further notes that having a dedicated processor or control device which is then connected to a remote device such as a computer wherein the two devices are separate is known in the art of laser welding as evidence by MOHRI (US 20220118559 A1). Furthermore, the Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of one-piece construction instead of a separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B.
The Office further notes that controlling the operation of a stage based on a remote system is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 33 of MOHRI (US 20220118559 A1).
Regarding claim 26, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the at least one sensor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a camera (camera; Paragraph 89, sensors 20 and 21 comprise cameras), a laser displacement sensor, a confocal laser sensor, an interferometers, an inductive coating thickness gauge, a stylus profilometer and a touch probe.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLETT (US 20160139593 A1) in view of Galbraith (US 20200023461 A1) and DeFelice (US 20170312821 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of NOMARU (US 20210094128 A1).
Regarding claim 14, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
WILLETT as modified fails to teach:
a stage coupled between the frame and the scan lens, wherein the stage is operative to move the scan lens.
NOMARU (US 20210094128 A1) teaches a laser processing apparatus, comprising:
a stage (condensing moving mechanism 43) coupled between the frame (Figure 2 Paragraph 25, optical system including the laser beam applying unit accommodated inside the horizontal wall section 262 of the frame body wherein a condenser 42 is disposed on a lower surface side of the horizontal wall section 262) and the scan lens (Figure 2, condensing moving mechanism 43 is located between condenser 42 and the lower portion of the frame body 26), wherein the stage is operative to move the scan lens (Paragraph 33, condenser moving mechanism moves the condenser 42 in the z-axis direction wherein the condenser 42 contains a condenser lens 42a).
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 WILLETT with NOMARU and used a condensing moving mechanism to move the scan lens. This would have been done to move the condensing point of the laser to the intended condensing position of the laser (NOMARU Paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 16, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
GRAPOV further teaches:
the camera is attached to the scan head frame (Paragraph 47, camera is coupled to the welding head)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 14.
NOMARU further teaches:
the stage is attached to the frame (Figure 2 Paragraph 25, optical system including the laser beam applying unit accommodated inside the horizontal wall section 262 of the frame body wherein a condenser 42 is disposed on a lower surface side of the horizontal wall section 262; Figure 2, condensing moving mechanism 43 is located between condenser 42 and the lower portion of the frame body 26)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 14.
Since both the camera and the stage are attached to the frame/scan head, the two would reasonably be considered to be coupled to one another.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLETT (US 20160139593 A1) in view of Galbraith (US 20200023461 A1) and DeFelice (US 20170312821 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Seki (US 20040124227 A1).
Regarding claim 20, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 18.
WILLETT as modified fails to teach:
a stage coupled between the inspection support and the camera, wherein the stage is operative to move the camera relative to the inspection support.
Seki (US 20040124227 A1) teaches a welding condition monitoring device, comprising:
a stage coupled between the inspection support and the camera (Paragraph 137, supporting member 9 integrally attaches the CMOS camera 2 with the outside of the welding head 1), wherein the stage is operative to move the camera relative to the inspection support (Paragraphs 137-138, the camera is moved relative to the welding head by means of supporting member 9.
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 WILLETT with Seki and have a supporting member be attached to and move the camera relative to the welding head. This would have been done to adjust the position of the camera relative to the welding head (Seki Paragraphs 137-138).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLETT (US 20160139593 A1) in view of Galbraith (US 20200023461 A1) and DeFelice (US 20170312821 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of REITEMEYER (US 20100276403 A1).
Regarding claim 24, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
WILLETT as modified fails to teach:
the at least one sensor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a laser power meter and a beam characterization tool.
REITEMEYER (US 20100276403 A1) teaches a laser machining head with an integrated sensor device, wherein:
the at least one sensor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a laser power meter and a beam characterization tool (Paragraph 42, radiation intensity striking sensor 13 changes its intensity maximum and its intensity distribution which can be used to deduce a change in focus position).
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 WILLETT with REITEMEYER and have a radiation intensity striking sensor be used as a beam characterization tool. This would have been done such that an uncontrolled change of focus position can be precisely detected (REITEMEYER Paragraph 27).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLETT (US 20160139593 A1) in view of Galbraith (US 20200023461 A1) and DeFelice (US 20170312821 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dietz (US 20100155375 A1).
Regarding claim 25, WILLETT as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
WILLETT as modified fails to teach:
the at least one sensor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor.
Dietz (US 20100155375 A1) teaching a device for welding material, wherein:
the at least one sensor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a temperature sensor (Paragraph 45, temperature sensor 72 is electrically connected to the control circuit and serves for detection of a thermal overload of the covering glass) and a humidity sensor.
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 WILLETT with Dietz and have scan head include a covering glass and a temperature sensor associated with said covering glass. This would have been done to protect the optical system of the scan head while preventing an overheating of the glass (Dietz Paragraph 24).
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
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights