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 11 February 2026 has been entered.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s arguments regarding Drawing Objection and the Specification Objection, but the examiner was not persuaded. Accordingly, there are still grounds for a Drawing objection and Specification objection in the Instant Application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every 35 USC 112 rejection. The 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 11 February 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 have been amended. Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 2-5 use brackets. The Instant Application is a national stage application. In national stage applications, brackets should not be used in association with numbers (PCT Rule 11.13, MPEP 1825). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 21 September 2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/DE2021/100285 and of the German patent application No. 10 2020 108 289.4 is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT, in this case 22 March 2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 22 September 2022 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US-20050169346-A1) in view of Hamilton (US-20190178790-A1, hereinafter Hamilton ‘790).
Regarding claim 1, Murray teaches a method (title) for generating a camera image (“thermal image of the weld,” para 0007) from which a welding contour (weld 56, fig. 2) can be derived (para 0024) along which an assembly (plastic materials 10 and 12, fig. 1) is to be welded in an image processing-assisted laser (laser 40, fig. 1) transmission welding process (para 0001), comprising the following process steps:
providing a workpiece holder (clamping devices 22, fig. 1) with a receiving area (area between the top and bottom devices 22, fig. 1), in which the assembly (plastic materials 10 and 12, fig. 1) is fixed (“holding,” para 0013) by clamping tools (“two clamping devices 22,” para 0013),the assembly comprising a laser radiation absorbing component (plastic material 10, fig. 1; “absorbs,” para 0014) having an end face (upper surface 14, fig. 1) bounded by at least one edge (four edges of material 10, fig. 2) formed with at least one wall surface (side surface of material 10 shown in fig. 1; construed as forming an edge with the top surface 14) of the absorbing component and representing the welding contour (weld 56, fig. 2; located on the top surface 14, fig. 1), and a component (plastic material 12, fig. 1) which is transparent to the laser radiation (“transmissive,” para 0014) and rests on the end face (material 12 rests on top surface 14, fig. 1);
providing a camera (infrared camera 70, fig. 1), with a camera axis (vertical axis, fig. 1), and directing the camera axis toward the assembly (camera 70 is directed toward materials 10 and 12, fig. 1)
deriving the welding contour from the image (para 0032 explains how the temperature is determined based on the pixel of the image to identify the weld pool of the weld, which is construed as the claimed “deriving the welding contour”), and
welding the assembly along the welding contour (“the weld controller 46 is responsive to the feedback signal from the image controller 74 for adjusting the welding process,” para 0033).
Murray, figs. 1 and 2
PNG
media_image1.png
482
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Murray does not explicitly disclose illuminating the assembly, while a camera image is simultaneously generated with the camera, wherein the transparent component is illuminated from a side facing away from the camera.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding joints, Hamilton ‘790 teaches illuminating the assembly (“illuminate the object 104,” para 0046), while a camera image (“image data,” para 0017) is simultaneously generated with the camera (“The light sensor 108 may measure an amount of light reflected by different parts of the object 104,” para 0046), wherein the transparent component (portion 106, fig. 2E) is illuminated from a side facing away from the camera (illuminated from the bottom left and bottom right sides away from sensor 108, fig. 2E).
Hamilton ‘790, fig. 2E
PNG
media_image3.png
1072
929
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, illuminating the assembly, while a camera image is simultaneously generated with the camera, wherein the transparent component is illuminated from a side facing away from the camera, in view of the teachings of Hamilton ‘790, by using a light guide 216 with light sources 102, as taught by Hamilton ‘790, such that the light guide 216 was attached to the bottom clamping device 22, as taught by Murray, in order to measure contrast ratios between the joint 112 and the object 104, which can be used to identify imperfections or defects in the material of the object 104 (Hamilton ‘790, paras 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 2, Murray teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose at least one illumination beam is partially directed onto the at least one wall surface, grazing the at least one edge, whereby the at least one edge is imaged in the camera image as a light-dark transition and a relative position of the welding contour adjacent to the at least one edge is derived from a relative position of the image of the at least one edge in the camera image.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding joints, Hamilton ‘790 teaches at least one illumination beam (beams from sources 102, fig. 2E) is partially directed onto the at least one wall surface (side surfaces 229 and 230 of portion 105, fig. 2E), grazing the at least one edge (the beams graze the edge between portions 105 and 106, fig. 2E), whereby the at least one edge is imaged in the camera image as a light-dark transition (“the light contrast ratio may be an amount of light reflected by the joint 112 versus an amount of light reflected by the first portion 105,” para 0031; the contrast is construed as the claimed “light-dark transition”) and a relative position of the welding contour (joint 112, fig. 2e) adjacent to the at least one edge (edge between portions 105 and 106, fig. 2E; the “relative position” is construed as the joint 112 being adjacent to the edge between the portions 105 and 106) is derived from a relative position of the image of the at least one edge in the camera image (“the object 104 may reflect at least a portion of the light to the light sensor 108,” para 0046; the “relative position” is construed as the position of the sensor 108 relative to the edge between the portions 105 and 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, at least one illumination beam is partially directed onto the at least one wall surface, grazing the at least one edge, whereby the at least one edge is imaged in the camera image as a light-dark transition and a relative position of the welding contour adjacent to the at least one edge is derived from a relative position of the image of the at least one edge in the camera image, in view of the teachings of Hamilton ‘790, by using a light guide 216 with light sources 102, as taught by Hamilton ‘790, such that the light guide 216 was attached to the bottom clamping device 22, as taught by Murray, in order to measure contrast ratios between the joint 112 and the object 104, which can be used to identify imperfections or defects in the material of the object 104 (Hamilton ‘790, paras 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 3, Murray teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein: at least one illumination beam is coupled into the transparent component in such a way that the illumination beam is transmitted within the transparent component, whereby radiation components of the illumination beam impinging on the adjacent end face are deflected or absorbed in a direction of the camera, as a result of which the end face is imaged brighter or darker than a background in the camera image.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding joints, Hamilton ‘790 teaches wherein: at least one illumination beam (beams from sources 102, fig. 2E) is coupled into the transparent component (portion 106, fig. 2E) in such a way that the illumination beam is transmitted within the transparent component (the beams transmit through portion 106, fig. 2E), whereby radiation components of the illumination beam (the photons of the beams; photons are inherent to light beams) impinging on the adjacent end face (the beams impinge on the top surface of portion 105, fig. 2E) are deflected or absorbed in a direction of the camera (beams deflect toward sensor 108, fig. 2E), as a result of which the end face is imaged brighter or darker than a background in the camera image (“the light contrast ratio may be an amount of light reflected by the joint 112 versus an amount of light reflected by the first portion 105,” para 0031; the contrast between the joint 112, which located on the construed “end face,” and the portion 105 is construed as the claimed “imaged brighter or darker,” i.e., the portion 105 is construed as the claimed “background”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, wherein: at least one illumination beam is coupled into the transparent component in such a way that the illumination beam is transmitted within the transparent component, whereby radiation components of the illumination beam impinging on the adjacent end face are deflected or absorbed in a direction of the camera, as a result of which the end face is imaged brighter or darker than a background in the camera image, in view of the teachings of Hamilton ‘790, by using a light guide 216 with light sources 102, as taught by Hamilton ‘790, such that the light guide 216 was attached to the bottom clamping device 22, as taught by Murray, in order to measure contrast ratios between the joint 112 and the object 104, which can be used to identify imperfections or defects in the material of the object 104 (Hamilton ‘790, paras 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 5, Murray teaches a device (fig. 1) for generating a camera image (“thermal image of the weld,” para 0007) from which a contour (weld 56, fig. 2; weld 56 is construed as a contour because it is the contour of a weld; the weld 56 has a square shape, fig. 2; similarly, fig. 1b shows a square shape for the contour 3.1 in fig. 1b ) can be derived (para 0024) along which an assembly (plastic materials 10 and 12, fig. 1), comprising a transparent component (plastic material 12, fig. 1) transparent to a laser radiation (“transmissive,” para 0014) and an absorbing component (plastic material 10, fig. 1) absorbing the laser radiation (“absorbs,” para 0014); is to be welded in an image processing-assisted laser (laser 40, fig. 1) transmission welding process (para 0001), wherein the absorbing component has at least one end face (upper surface 14, fig. 1) which is bounded by at least one edge (four edges of material 10, fig. 2) formed with at least one wall surface of the absorbing component (side surface of material 10 shown in fig. 1; construed as forming an edge with the top surface 14) and represents the contour (weld 56, fig. 2; located on the top surface 14, fig. 1), and the transparent component rests on the end face (material 12 rests on top surface 14, fig. 1), the device comprising:
a workpiece holder (clamping devices 22, fig. 1) having a receiving area (area between the top and bottom devices 22, fig. 1) within which the assembly (plastic materials 10 and 12, fig. 1) is fixed (“holding,” para 0013) by clamping tools (“two clamping devices 22,” para 0013),
a camera (infrared camera 70, fig. 1) having a camera axis (vertical axis, fig. 1) directed toward the receiving area (camera 70 is directed toward materials 10 and 12, fig. 1), wherein an object plane (horizontal plane located at surfaces 14 and 20, fig. 1) of the camera lies within the receiving area in which the contour (weld 56 is located at the weld pool 60, fig. 1) of the assembly (plastic materials 10 and 12, fig. 1) is located.
Murray does not explicitly disclose an illumination unit having at least one light source configured to emit an illumination beam, wherein the at least one light source is arranged on or in the workpiece holder and is directed onto the assembly.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding joints, Hamilton ‘790 teaches at least one light source (light sources 102, fig. 2E) configured to emit an illumination beam (beams from sources 102, fig. 2E), wherein the at least one light source is arranged on or in the workpiece holder (light guide 216, fig. 2E) and is directed onto the assembly (object 104, fig. 2E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, an illumination unit having at least one light source configured to emit an illumination beam, wherein the at least one light source is arranged on or in the workpiece holder and is directed onto the assembly, in view of the teachings of Hamilton ‘790, by using a light guide 216 with light sources 102, as taught by Hamilton ‘790, such that the light guide 216 was attached to the bottom clamping device 22, as taught by Murray, in order to measure contrast ratios between the joint 112 and the object 104, which can be used to identify imperfections or defects in the material of the object 104 (Hamilton ‘790, paras 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Murray in view of Hamilton ‘790 as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Hamilton ‘790 teaches wherein the at least one light source (light sources 102, fig. 2E) is arranged below the object plane (plane where joint 112 is located, fig. 2E) and inclined to the camera axis (vertical axis under sensor 108, fig. 2E) and is configured to illuminate by the at least one illumination beam directly at least a portion of the at least one edge in the assembly in a grazing manner (the beams graze the edge between portions 105 and 106, fig. 2E).
Regarding claim 7, Murray teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one light source is arranged above the object plane in alignment with, parallel to, or inclined to the camera axis and is configured to by the at least one illumination beam which is configured to be scattered in the assembly and to graze the at least one edge.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding joints, Hamilton ‘790 teaches wherein the at least one light source (light elements 110, fig. 2F) is arranged above the object plane (plane where joint 112 is located, fig. 2F) in alignment with, parallel to, or inclined to the camera axis (the light elements 110 are parallel relative to the vertical, fig. 2F) and is configured to indirectly illuminate (indirect arrows, fig. 2F) at least a portion of the at least one edge by the at least one illumination beam (beams from light elements 110, fig. 2F) which is configured to be scattered in the assembly (object 104, fig. 2F) and to graze the at least one edge (“the light guide 232 may be located below the object 104 or at a side of the object 104,” para 0048; construed such that the guide can be configured to graze the side or edge of the object 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, wherein the at least one light source is arranged above the object plane in alignment with, parallel to, or inclined to the camera axis and is configured to indirectly illuminate at least a portion of the at least one edge by the at least one illumination beam which is configured to be scattered in the assembly and to graze the at least one edge, in view of the teachings of Hamilton ‘790, by using a light guide 232, as taught by Hamilton ‘790, such that the light guide 232 was attached to the bottom clamping device 22, as taught by Murray, in order to use a light guide that is adjustable and that reflects the light elements to fully illuminate at least a part of the object 104, for the advantage of identifying imperfections or defects in the material of the object 104 (Hamilton ‘790, paras 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 8, Murray teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one light source is arranged within the receiving area.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding joints, Hamilton ‘790 teaches wherein the at least one light source (light source 102, fig. 3C) is arranged within the receiving area (inside cavity 310, fig. 3C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, wherein the at least one light source is arranged within the receiving area, in view of the teachings of Hamilton ‘790, by using conical mirror 308 and by placing a light source 102, as taught by Hamilton ‘790, inside the bottom plastic material 10, as taught by Murray, in order to use a conical mirror to increase the amount of light that is reflected to the light sensor 108, for the advantage of increasing the accuracy of the detections for imperfections and defects in the object 104 (Hamilton ‘790, para 0055; Murray teaches that the plastic material 10 can have an “opening,” para 0019).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Murray in view of Hamilton ‘790 as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Hamilton ‘790 teaches wherein the at least one light source (light sources 102, fig. 2E) is arranged outside of the receiving area (area where the object 104 is located, fig. 2E).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US-20050169346-A1) in view of Hamilton (US-20190178790-A1, hereinafter Hamilton ‘790) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hamilton (US-20210199569-A1, hereinafter Hamilton ‘569, effective filing date of 26 Dec 2019).
Murray teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a sequence of camera images is generated while the camera is pivoted around a pivot point.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding joints, Hamilton ‘569 teaches wherein a sequence of camera images is generated (“the circumferential image may include multiple images that the processing device 114 may stitch, aggregate, or combine together to generate a full view of the circumferential weld,” para 0051) while the camera is pivoted around a pivot point (“the light sensor 108 may rotate about an axis,” para 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, wherein a sequence of camera images is generated while the camera is pivoted around a pivot point, in view of the teachings of Hamilton ‘569, by rotating, as taught by Hamilton ‘569, the camera 70, as taught by Murray, in order to capture a aggregate circumferential image, for the advantage of using the aggregate image to identify an abnormality or imperfection in the circumferential weld (Hamilton ‘569, para 0051).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US-20050169346-A1) in view of Hamilton (US-20190178790-A1, hereinafter Hamilton ‘790) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Messler (US-20040114662-A1).
Murray teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose the at least one light source is aligned above the object plane and parallel to the object plane, whereby the at least one illumination beam is configured to be coupled into the assembly, into the transparent component, and whereby radiation components of the at least one illumination beam configured to impinge on the adjacent end face are deflected or absorbed in a direction of the camera.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of detecting or inspecting welding seams, Messler teaches the at least one light source (radiation sources 31, fig. 4) is aligned above the object plane (the radiation sources are located above the contact surface 13, fig. 4) and parallel to the object plane (the radiation sources 31 is parallel to the contact surface 13, fig. 4), whereby the at least one illumination beam (radiation 30, fig. 4) is configured to be coupled into the assembly (the radiation couples into the workpiece 10, fig. 4), into the transparent component (part 11, fig. 4), and whereby radiation components of the at least one illumination beam (radiation 30, fig. 4) configured to impinge on the adjacent end face are deflected (reflected radiation 32, fig. 4) or absorbed in a direction of the camera (camera 39, fig. 5).
Messler, fig. 5
PNG
media_image4.png
602
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Murray to include, the at least one light source is aligned above the object plane and parallel to the object plane, whereby the at least one illumination beam is configured to be coupled into the assembly, into the transparent component, and whereby radiation components of the at least one illumination beam configured to impinge on the adjacent end face are deflected or absorbed in a direction of the camera, in view of the teachings of Messler, by using the several radiations sources 31, as taught by Messler in fig. 5, in the system, as taught by Murray in fig. 1, in order to transmit radiation through the workpiece, for the advantage of detecting the inspection radiation emerging from the welded workpiece, enabling the identification of imperfections in the weld (Messler, para 0010).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawings
The examiner agrees with the Applicant’s statement on page 7 that PCT Rule 11.13 (MPEP 1825) requires that "Brackets, circles or inverted commas shall not be used in association with numbers and letters." However, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s next statement that the use of brackets to link numbers to other numbers is permitted. Instead, the examiner agrees with the Applicant’s previous statement that PCT Rule 11.13 (MPEP 1825) does not permit the use of brackets in association with numbers.
On page 7, the Applicant states that the WIPO accepted fig. 2-5. However, it is not clear to the examiner why this acceptance from the WIPO permits the Applicant to avoid having to follow the PCT Rules or how this acceptance has any authority over determinations that are made by the USPTO.
Specification
Pages 7-8 of the arguments state that the “content of the PCT and German priority applications are automatically incorporated entirely into the national stage application.” However, the Applicant does not provide any evidence or findings to support this statement.
The examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant is not permitted to add new matter to the Specification after the PCT filing date, which is 22 March 2021. Support for this determination can be found in the MPEP, and the MPEP references are provided in the Specification objection above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The arguments do not have a clear description of the Applicant’s claimed invention in view of the Specification, and the arguments also do not explain how the Applicant’s invention is distinguishable over the provided prior-art references. Instead, the arguments provide contradictory statements and do not clearly link conclusions with findings of facts.
Page 10 of the arguments provides the following statement:
“As described further below, while Murray in view of Hamilton '790 may teach controlling a welding process based on imaging during the welding process itself, it does not teach deriving a welding contour from an image and welding along that derived welding contour (emphasis, Applicant’s).”
The examiner agrees that Murray (US20050169346) teaches “controlling a welding process based on imaging during the welding process itself.” However, the examiner disagrees that Murray “does not teach deriving a welding contour from an image and welding along that derived welding contour.” Instead, the examiner agrees with the previous statement.
Page 10 of the arguments provides the following description of Murray:
“As described and depicted in Murray, IR images of the entire contour are continuously acquired (not just a single image), see Fig. 3A. From the images, temperatures at the welding contour are derived and, if necessary, the welding process is adjusted. Para. [0033] of Murray gives an example: Depending on the temperature, the laser beam can remain longer or shorter at a position derived from the image.”
The examiner agrees with this description of Murray.
However, page 10 of the arguments also makes the following statements:
“Murray does not describe how that predefined contour (56) is determined. Murray's predefined contour may correspond to the (welding) contour of claims 1 and 5. However, while the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 5 could be used to determine and define Murray's contour, unlike the claimed invention, Murray describes a method to control the process during welding, and not a method to determine and define a contour (emphasis, Applicant’s)”
The examiner disagrees with these statements. Specifically, the examiner does not agree that “Murray does not describe how that predefined contour (56) is determined” or that Murray does “not [describe] a method to determine and define a contour.” Instead, the examiner agrees with the Applicant’s previous description of Murray that “IR images of the entire contour are continuously acquired” and “from the images, temperatures at the welding contour are derived.”
Page 10 of the arguments states that “a key feature of Murray's system is that the camera captures a thermal image, with the IR radiation originating from the workpiece itself, and not from a separate illumination.” The examiner agrees that Murray teaches using a camera to capture a thermal image that is based on IR irradiation and that Murray does not explicitly disclose using separate illumination.
Page 11 of the arguments states the following:
“As such, Murray cannot teach or suggest the claim 1 method for generating a camera image from which a welding contour can be derived, nor the specific steps of ‘deriving the welding contour from the image’ and ‘welding the assembly along the welding contour,’ nor the analogous claim 5 device ‘for generating a camera image from which a contour can be derived along which an assembly.’”
The examiner does not agree with these statements. Specifically, the examiner does not agree that Murray does not teach a step of “deriving the welding contour from the image” or that Murray does not teach “generating a camera image from which a contour can be derived.” Instead, the examiner agrees with the Applicant’s previous description of Murray that “IR images of the entire contour are continuously acquired” and “from the images, temperatures at the welding contour are derived.” The examiner also does not agree that Murray does not teach a step for “welding the assembly along the welding contour.” Instead, the examiner agrees with the Applicant’s previous description of Murray that based on the images, “if necessary, the welding process is adjusted.”
Page 11 of the arguments states the following regarding Hamilton ‘790 (US20190178790):
“Hamilton '790 describes devices and methods for quality control after the welding process, and therefore also cannot teach or suggest methods or systems for deriving a welding contour from an image and welding an assembly along the welding contour-independently, or in combination with Murray. As taught by Hamilton '790, for this purpose of quality control after the welding process, the workpiece is illuminated with light sources 102, which include elements 110. These light sources can also emit IR radiation. A light sensor 108 - which can also be configured as a camera with an integrated evaluation unit 114 - registers the image of the entire workpiece. Fig. 2e of Hamilton '790, for example, which the Examiner refers to, shows a light guide below the workpiece with light source 110 positioned laterally at its edges. The workpiece is illuminated from the side. Light reflected from this side is registered by the sensor 108 (emphasis, Applicant’s).”
The examiner agrees with all of the statements in this paragraph except for the first sentence.
With respect to the first sentence, although Hamilton ‘790 teaches a process that can be used as quality control after a welding process, Hamilton ‘790 also teaches “an inspection process” for objects “prior to being used” (paragraph 0016). This first sentence also states that Hamilton ‘790 does not teach “deriving a welding contour from an image.” However, Hamilton ‘790 teaches illuminating a joint 112 in order to identify a threshold light contrast ratio (paragraph 0031) and detecting this threshold light contrast level using a sensor (paragraph 0032). A similar process is described in the Specification of the Instant Application, where a “contrast jump” in an image. Finally, the first statement mistakenly states that Hamilton ‘790 does not teach “welding an assembly along the welding contour.” Instead, Hamilton ‘790 teaches welding the joint 112 (paragraph 0037).
In response to applicant's argument on page 11 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the Instant Application does not disclose using infrared irradiation or infrared illumination, so it does not follow that the rejection combining Murray and Hamilton ‘790 is based on the examiner’s hindsight of the Applicant’s disclosure.
Pages 11-12 state that Murray teaches blocking non-IR wavelengths using a filter. The examiner agrees with this statement. However, the Applicant then states if additional IR light sources were used, at taught by Hamilton ‘790, then the measurement of IR radiation, as taught by Murray, would be distorted.
The examiner disagrees. Instead, the filter only blocks non-IR wavelengths. Illumination that is based on IR light would not be blocked or distorted by the filter. Furthermore, based on the teachings of Hamilton ‘790, using IR illumination actually results in a higher contrast ratio of the joint 112 (paragraph 0031). Thus, instead of distorting the joint or the welding contour, the IR illumination would actually result in the welding contour having a higher contrast.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/3/2026