DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/14/2026 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: No claims are added or canceled. Thus, claims 1 – 13 are currently pending. In the interview held on July 10, 2026, we agreed that the claims would overcome the Obviousness rejection made in the Non-Final rejection on April 30, 2026. However, upon further investigation and an examiner-initiated interview held on Oct. 02, 2026, to discuss the obviousness of a weld inspection device of claim 1, the examiner found that while the method claim 10 is allowable over the prior art, claim 1 would be obvious over Miura in view of Sylvester and the following 2nd Non-Final Rejection is made herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, page 7, filed on 07/14/2026, with respect to claim 10 overcoming the Obviousness rejection of Miura in view of Sylvester have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Obviousness rejection of claims 10 – 11 and 13 in the Non-Final Rejection on April 30, 2026, has been withdrawn.
Furthermore, the Office withdraws the rejection of claims 3 – 9 for reasons mentioned in the Allowable Subject Matter section below.
However, applicants’ arguments regarding the obviousness of claim 1 are fully considered and are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Miura does not teach the limitations of claim 1 because Miura does not disclose its scanning mechanism associated with its first laser irradiation device being used to scan a weld such that the weld is traversed by the scanning mechanism, (see Remarks, page 7).
While the Office grants that Miura does not disclose its apparatus being used in this manner, and further grants that it does not disclose its apparatus being capable of being used in this manner with respect to Miura's weld W and its two base materials that make up the object 2 to be welded, the Office finds that Miura's first laser irradiation device and its scanner would be capable of scanning an irradiation position across a weld simply by virtue of its scanner being able to move in what it discloses as the Y-direction in figs. 14 and 15. There is nothing impeding an already-created weld joint between two base materials from being placed under Miura's drive mechanism 11 and irradiation point Pi in a manner such that drive mechanism 11 could move irradiation point Pi from one base material, across the weld, to the other base material.
The claim is directed to "a weld inspection device that inspects a weld of a lap fillet joint," "comprising a first irradiation device that irradiates the weld of an inspection target with a generation laser exciting an ultrasonic wave inside the inspection target, the inspection target including two base materials jointed by the weld of a lap fillet joint." The language of the "device that inspects a weld" and "a first irradiation device that irradiates the weld" suggest that the weld is not a positively-recited element of the claim (see MPEP § 2115, "material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims"), and only limits the claimed apparatus to the extent that the performability of the claimed function requires particular structure of the apparatus (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Because the only structure that the claimed function seems to require is the ability of the scanner to traverse a weld (particularly by movement aligned with the predetermined irradiation position of the second irradiation device), the Office finds that Miura discloses this feature with how its irradiation point Pi can be moved by its drive mechanism 11 in the Y-direction.
Because the Office indicated that the claims would be allowable over the prior art in the interview held July 10th, 2026, this Office action is non-final.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 10, this claim is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim recites “the weld inspection method comprising:”, lines 1 – 3, and appears to have a random gap between “weld” and “inspection”. The word “weld” is recited in the second line then “inspection” starts in the third line inappropriately. Appropriate correction is required.
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (US 2011/0284508 A1, recited in the Final Rejection), hereinafter "Miura", in view of Sylvester et al. (US 4112775 A, recited in the Final Rejection) and hereinafter "Sylvester".
Regarding claim 1, Miura discloses a weld inspection device that inspects a weld of lap fillet joint (a welding system 30 comprising a real-time inspection device (0041 - 0042 and see FIG. 1) that inspects a weld joint for example, two flat plates, butted welded together, (0047)), the weld inspection device comprising:
a first laser irradiation device that irradiates the weld of an inspection target with a generation laser exciting an ultrasonic wave inside the inspection target (a transmission optical mechanism 9 that transmits, during or after welding operation, a transmission laser light Li to a weld inspection target Pi, so as to generate a transmission ultrasonic wave U inside the weld inspection target, (0043 - 0044, FIG. 1 and see claim 1)), the inspection target including two base materials jointed by the weld of (the inspection target includes two portions of base material 2 joined by the weld W, please see annotated FIG. 1);
a second laser irradiation device that irradiates a predetermined position on the inspection target where the ultrasonic wave is to be detected with detection laser for detecting the ultrasonic wave (a reception optical mechanism 10 that transmits, during or after welding operation, a reception laser light to a predetermined irradiation point Pd on the inspection target where the ultrasonic wave U is detected with the reception laser, (0043 0044, 0058 - 0059 and please see FIG.1)), the ultrasonic wave passing through the weld and being reflected by a base material lower surface of the inspection target (the ultrasonic wave U passing through the weld W and when it reaches an improperly welded part or bottom surface of the object to be welded, the propagation path changes due to reflection, (0058) *Note -FIG.1 only shows the ultrasonic wave U reflected in the weld W, however, ¶0058 discloses that the ultrasonic wave U could also pass through the weld and be reflected by the base object of the inspection target), the second laser irradiation device irradiating one of the two base materials (the reception optical mechanism 10 irradiating the second (right) portion of the base material 2, please see annotated FIG1);
a laser interferometer that measures interference of reflected light of the detection laser (an interferometer 6 that performs interference measurement of the scattered/reflected light of a detection laser, (0043, annotated FIG. and see claim 1)); and
a controller that determines existence of an internal defect of the weld based on a measurement result of the laser interferometer (a data recording/analysis mechanism 7 that measures and analyzes an ultrasonic signal obtained by the interferometer and determines presence/absence of the welding defect, (0043, 0063, FIG.1 and see claim 1)),
wherein the first laser irradiation device includes a scanning mechanism that scans an irradiation position of the generation laser in a direction intersecting a welding direction (a drive system 11 of transmission optical mechanism 9 includes moving/scanning the transmission laser in a direction, y-direction, perpendicular (intersecting) to the welding direction, (0095 and see FIG. 14)),
wherein a starting position of the scanning mechanism is a first one of the two base materials and an ending position of the scanning mechanism is a second one of the two base materials such that the scanning mechanism traverses the weld in the direction intersecting the welding direction (the scanning mechanism 11 moves the position of the irradiation laser light irradiation point Pi on the objects 2 to be welded and the direction of the movement of irradiation point Pi can be in the X-direction, parallel to the welding direction or in the Y-direction, intersecting the welding direction in the inspection region of a two-dimensional cross-section 17 (0051, 0093-0095 and please see FIGS. 14 - 15), because, Miura teaches the scanning mechanism 11 moves the position of the irradiation laser light irradiation point Pi on the objects 2 intersecting the welding direction (Y -direction), the selection of starting point and ending point for the movement of the irradiation laser of inspection Pi to traverse the weld is considered a preferred process conducted by the claimed device. *Note here, Miura already discloses all the structures of the claimed weld inspection device, and the manner in which the inspection is conducted (starting point to ending point traversing the weld) is not given patentable weight as a device claim covers what a device is, not what a device does, "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus"), MPEP 2114. II.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miura does not explicitly teach that the weld Joint W is of a lap fillet joint.
However, Sylvester that relates to fillet weld inspection system (see FIG.1), also teaches application of ultrasonic beam to detect defects in a lap fillet joint 56 lap welding plate 53 to plate 54, (3:28 - 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed intervention, to modify the weld joint W inspected by the weld inspection device of Miura to be a lap fillet joint as it is known to use ultrasonic waves to detect defects in a lap fillet joint as taught in Sylvester. Further, It has been considered that "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.", MPEP 2115. In this case, the claimed structure is "a weld inspection device" and the fact that the "weld inspection device" is inspecting or working upon a lap fillet joint, a butt weld joint or a corner joint is does not impart patentability to the claim. Device, apparatus and system claims are patentable for what they structurally entail not for the material or article they work upon.
Regarding claim 2, Miura in view of Sylvester teaches the weld inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines that the internal defect is generated in the weld when an attenuation degree of intensity of the ultrasonic wave detected with the detection laser and the laser interferometer exceeds a threshold (the data recording/analysis mechanism 7 determines the welding defect based on analysis result of the ultrasonic signal exceeds a threshold value, Miura (0063 and 0068 - 0070) and processing the ultrasonic wave from the interferometer to determine the intensity of the detected ultrasonic wave and evaluating weld defect based on the determined intensity, Miura (0126 - 0127)).
Regarding claim 12, Miura in view of Sylvester teaches the weld inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the scanning mechanism traverses the weld in the direction intersecting the welding direction such that the generation laser from the first laser irradiation device is irradiated at multiple points on the weld of the inspection target (the scanning mechanism 11 moves the position of the irradiation laser light irradiation point Pi on the objects 2 to be welded and the direction of the movement of irradiation point Pi can be in the Y-direction, intersecting the welding direction in the inspection region of a two-dimensional cross-section 17, Miura (0051, 0093 - 0095 and please see FIG.15), moving the irradiation point Pi along the base objects 2 to be welded naturally covers multiple inspection points/targets Pi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the arc welding device of claim 3 adds patentable weight to the weld and weld direction limitations of claim 1, and defines over the prior art.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior arts of record teach the claimed step of scanning the irradiation generation laser “wherein a starting position of the irradiation position is a first one of the two base materials and an ending position of the irradiation position is a second one of the two base materials such that the scanning traverses the weld in the direction intersecting the welding direction” as recited in the claim. Claims 11 and 13 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights