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 amendments to the claims have been entered.
Claims 1, 2, and 10-11 have been amended. Claims 3-9 are original. Claim 12 is new. Thus, claims 1-12 are pending and have been considered in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pg. 6, regarding the objection to the claims has been considered and is persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pgs. 6-7, regarding the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea such as a mental process under Prong One of Step 2A found in MPEP § 2106 (pg. 6, p. 9 and pg. 7, p. 1) because outputting a measurement beam and carrying out distance measurements cannot be practically performed in the human mind (pg. 7, p. 2). Applicant further argues that the Office instructs that claims containing any limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is not directed to a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner presumes that Applicant is referring to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) which recites that “Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind”. This quotation is distinct from Applicant’s paraphrased assertion that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain any limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. If the latter statement were true, the Office would not require further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) for a broad overview analyzing claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner argues that the amended limitation “outputting a measurement beam of an optical coherence tomograph” in claim 1 does not integrate a claimed abstract idea (identified as “monitoring a curved solidified weld seam” below) into a practical application which is the standard applied in Prong Two of Step 2A found in MPEP § 2106.04(d). “Outputting a measurement beam” which is deflected to carry out distance measurements which are then monitored is construed as mere extra-solution activity. These amendments do not integrate the monitoring step into a practical application. The rejection of the claims 1-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 can be found in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pg. 7, regarding the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to software per se has been considered and is persuasive. The rejection of the claim 11 for being directed to software per se has been withdrawn in 1.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pgs. 7-10, regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 given the teachings of Pfitzner has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pfitzner does not disclose or suggest outputting a measurement beam (pg. 10, p. 2 remarks filed 12/17/2025). Examiner agrees but notes that Lessmueller, not Pfitzner, is relied on to teach “outputting a measurement beam” in the revised response below. The suggestions of Pfitzner/motivation to combine is addressed below in this revised response on pg. 4. Applicant further argues that Pfitzner does not disclose or suggest outputting a measurement beam at given points or carrying out distance measurements at given points (pg. 10, p. 3 remarks filed 12/17/2025). Examiner agrees but notes that Lessmueller rather than Pfitzner is relied on to teach “outputting a measurement beam both at at least one pre-measurement point… and at at least one post-measurement point” and “carrying out distance measurement both at at least one pre-measurement point… and at at least one post-measurement point”. The suggestions of Pfitzner/motivation to combine is addressed below in this revised response on pg. 4. Applicant further argues that Pfitzner fails to disclose “positioning the post-measurement line so as to be offset” (pg. 10, p. 3). Examiner agrees but notes that Pfitzner and Lessmueller are relied on to teach this limitation. The explanation for why Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach this limitation can be found on pgs. 12-13 of the Office Action dated 09/22/2025 and below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pgs. 10-11, regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 given the teachings of Pfitzner and Lessmueller has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness as the previous Office Action has not articulated how the optical coherence tomograph (OCT) of Lessmueller would be structurally integrated into the system of Pfitzner (pg. 11, p. 1). Examiner argues that this is not required to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.") See also MPEP § 2145(III). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success performing such a modification (i.e., the substitution of a camera-based imaging system for an OCT) given the art recognized equivalence of these elements. Becker (WO 2019149872 A1), for example, teaches that a sensor 28 for detection an analysis area on a workpiece [0002] may be either a camera [0016] or alternatively an optical coherence tomograph [0017]. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependents has been upheld and can be found in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pgs. 10-11, regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the teachings of Pfitzner and Lessmueller to the limitation “positioning the post-measurement line so as to be offset” has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the offsets between the detection field sections 68, 68’ of Pfitzner as present due to where these sections exist or are detected, not where these sections of positioned (pg. 11, p. 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner argues that “where” these detection sections “exist” is equivalent is the “position” they occupy and implies a step of “positioning”. Beyond this point, Pfitzner teaches that these “detection field sections… are defined… based on the target or actual-position data of the laser beam 14 that describe the position of the weld path of the laser” [0051]. Being “defined” is construed as being “positioned”. The curved weld seam 36 of Pfitzner is created by laser beam and corresponds to movement of laser beam 14 [0046]. Thus, the field sections are even selectively positioned. The claim mapping below has been revised to make more explicit the teachings of Pfitzner. These second detection field sections 68, 68’ of Pfitzner are construed as analogous to the plurality of measuring points 74 in Pre and Post positions of Lessmueller and inherit the step of being positioned as well. The rejection of claim 1 has been upheld and can be found in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pg. 12, regarding the rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-11 has been upheld and can be found in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/17/2025 on pg. 12, regarding the rejection of amended claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. The claim mapping to and rejection of claim 2 has been upheld and can be found in this revised response below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (here, an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106.04, each of claims 1-9 and 11 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Regarding Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a statutory category (here, a process). Claim 11 is directed a category (here, a product and a process). Claim 12 is directed to a statutory category (here, a process).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites the abstract ideas bolded below:
1. A method for monitoring a curved solidified weld seam during the welding of a workpiece using a processing laser beam moving in a welding direction, the method comprising:
during the welding, carrying out distance measurements using a measurement beam of an optical coherence tomograph both at at least one pre-measurement point situated upstream of a present welding position relative to the welding direction, and at at least one post-measurement point situated downstream of the present welding position relative to the welding direction, the distance measurements being carried out by deflecting the measurement beam on the workpiece, and
monitoring the curved, solidified weld seam on the basis of the distance measurements,
wherein if the distance measurements are carried out at a plurality of post- measurement points, forming a post-measurement line from the plurality of post-measurement points and positioning the post-measurement line so as to be offset relative to a pre-measurement line formed from a plurality of pre-measurement points, wherein the offset is in the direction of the pre-measurement line toward the curved, solidified weld seam and/or is rotated relative to the pre-measurement line in the direction toward the normal to the curved, solidified weld seam, and
if the distance measurements are carried out at a single post-measurement point, positioning the single post-measurement point so as to be spaced apart from a line passing through the present welding position in the welding direction further in the direction toward the curved, solidified weld seam than each pre-measurement point.
The above limitations appear to be directed to mental processes and/or mathematical operations and/or certain methods of human activity because the limitations can be construed as reciting observation tasks (“monitoring”) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, the judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional bolded elements:
1. A method for monitoring a curved solidified weld seam during the welding of a workpiece using a processing laser beam moving in a welding direction, the method comprising:
during the welding, outputting a measurement beam of an optical coherence tomograph both at at least one pre-measurement point situated upstream of a present welding position relative to the welding direction, and at at least one post-measurement point situated downstream of the present welding position relative to the welding direction;
carrying out distance measurements at both the at least one pre-measurement point and the at least one post-measurement point by deflecting the measurement beam on the workpiece; and
monitoring the curved, solidified weld seam on the basis of the distance measurements,
wherein if the distance measurements are carried out at a plurality of post- measurement points, forming a post-measurement line from the plurality of post-measurement points and positioning the post-measurement line so as to be offset relative to a pre-measurement line formed from a plurality of pre-measurement points, wherein the offset is in the direction of the pre-measurement line toward the curved, solidified weld seam and/or is rotated relative to the pre-measurement line in the direction toward the normal to the curved, solidified weld seam, and
if the distance measurements are carried out at a single post-measurement point, positioning the single post-measurement point so as to be spaced apart from a line passing through the present welding position in the welding direction further in the direction toward the curved, solidified weld seam than each pre-measurement point.
either alone or in combination, represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). “During the welding of a workpiece using a processing laser beam moving in a welding direction” is interpreted as a field of use limitation. “Outputting a measurement beam of an optical coherence tomograph” is interpreted as mere extra-solution activity as an output measurement beam is a necessary precursor for carrying out distance measurements with said beam. As the abstract idea of “monitoring” is based on these “distance measurements”, “carrying out” these “distance measurements… by deflecting the measurement beam on the workpiece” is construed as mere data gathering. That distance measurements are carried out with a beam and optical coherence tomograph or are carried out at certain locations does not meaningfully limit the process of monitoring the weld seam. Thus, the claim does not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of the use, the analysis is the same. The “during the welding” limitations are directed toward field of use. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(h). For limitations adding insignificant extra-solution activity, the analysis is the same. The remaining bolded limitations above are interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity for the reasons below. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional elements are well-known. Distance measurements carried out with a measuring beam and optical coherence tomograph along with pre- and post-measurement lines and points appear to be routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by Lessmueller et al. (DE 102016014564 A1 submitted in IDS 9/23/2022). Distance measurement lines that are offset or rotated relative toward a curved solidified weld seam appear to be routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071 A1). A laser beam generator, processing laser beam, laser scanner, optical coherence tomograph, an OCT scanner, and a machine controller are routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by Lessmueller et al. (DE 102016014564 A1 submitted in IDS 9/23/2022) and Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071 A1). The limitation is not significant and amounts to necessary data gathering, as “monitoring” in the claim is “on the basis of the distance measurements”.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C § 101. The same conclusion is reached for independent claims 11 and 12, which recite substantially similar limitations directed to an apparatus and a process respectively, and the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims merely further limit the post-measurement line and its configuration and are interpreted as further insignificant extra-solution activity/data gathering. The additional limitations of claim 11 do not integrate the limitations of claim 1 into a practical application because the “non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-executable instructions” is interpreted as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2016.05(f). The alternative phrasing in the limitations of claim 12 do not integrate the limitations of claim 1 into a practical application.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071 A1), hereinafter Pfitzner, further in view of Lessmueller et al. (DE 102016014564 A1 submitted in IDS 9/23/2022), hereinafter Lessmueller.
Regarding claim 1, Pfitzner teaches a method for monitoring (“highly reliable process monitoring”, [0031]) a curved solidified weld seam (solidified melt 58, Fig. 2) during the welding of a workpiece (workpieces 18, Fig. 1) using a processing laser beam (laser beam 14, Fig. 1) moving in a welding direction (“weld direction R” [0052], Fig. 1), the method comprising:
during the welding (“during the welding process” [0059]),…and
monitoring the curved, solidified weld seam on the basis (“radiation emitted… in second detection field sections 68 and 68'… can be evaluated to determine one or more characteristic values… By comparing the characteristic value with a predefined (preferably experimentally determined) reference value, defects then can be detected in the weld seam.” [0059]; Measurements at sections 68, 68’ are used to detect defects. Repeated measurements at 68, 68’ is construed as monitoring the weld seam.)…
positioning (“detection field sections… are defined… based on the target or actual-position data of the laser beam 14 that describe the position of the weld path of the laser” [0051]. Being “defined” is construed as being “positioned”)… so as to be offset relative to (Fig. 2 depicts second detection field sections 68 and 68' “that extend perpendicularly or approximately perpendicularly to the weld seam” [0021]. Given that “solidified melt 58, which forms the weld seam 36” [0052] is curved, sections 68 and 68’ are construed as offset relative to each other if both are perpendicular to the curved weld seam 36. Annotated reproductions of Fig. 2 which identify an offset and relative rotation can be found below)… wherein the offset (difference between section lengths/orientations of sections 68, 68’, Fig. 2) is in the direction (Annotated Fig. 2, designated Annotation A, shows offset within circles at ends of section 68 relative to section 68’. Offset is construed as being directed toward weld seam as section 68 is situated closer to the weld seam that the projection of section 68’ at the location along the seam of section 68 would be)… toward the curved, solidified weld seam and/or is rotated relative (Annotated Fig. 2, designated Annotation B, shows that sections 68, 68’ are not parallel and thus rotated at some angle with respect to each other)… in the direction toward the normal to the curved, solidified weld seam (Both sections 68, 68’ extend perpendicularly or approximately perpendicularly to the weld seam” [0021] and section 68 is construed as being rotated toward the normal relative to section 68’).
Pfitzner does not teach outputting a measurement beam of an optical coherence tomograph both at at least one pre-measurement point situated upstream of a present welding position relative to the welding direction, and at at least one post-measurement point situated downstream of the present welding position relative to the welding direction, carrying out distance measurements at both the at least one pre-measurement point situated upstream of a present welding position relative to the welding direction, and the at least one post-measurement point by deflecting the measurement beam on the workpiece; and… of the distance measurements,
wherein if the distance measurements are carried out at a plurality of post- measurement points, forming a post-measurement line from the plurality of post-measurement points and positioning the post-measurement line… a pre-measurement line formed from a plurality of pre-measurement points… the pre-measurement line… to the pre-measurement line…
if the distance measurements are carried out at a single post-measurement point, the single post-measurement point… than each pre-measurement point.
Lessmueller teaches outputting a measurement beam (optical measuring beam 28, Fig. 1) of an optical coherence tomograph (optical coherence tomograph 16 (OCT) with an OCT measuring device 18, Fig. 1) both at at least one pre-measurement point situated upstream (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the first measuring position (Pre)” [0053]) of a present welding position (see Fig. 2) relative to the welding direction (see mapping to Pfitzner),
carrying out distance measurements (“height information of the scanned measuring points 74” [0055], Fig. 2) both at at least one pre-measurement point (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the first measuring position (Pre)” [0053]) situated upstream (“first measuring position (Pre) is located in front of a planned current machining position in a machining direction (BR)” [0044]) of a present welding position (current processing or machining position 76, Fig. 2) relative to the welding direction (see mapping to Pfitzner), and at at least one post-measurement point (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053]) situated downstream (“third measuring position (post) is located behind the intended current machining position” [0044], Fig. 2) of the present welding position relative to the welding direction,
carrying out distance measurements (“height information of the scanned measuring points 74” [0055], Fig. 2) both at the at least one pre-measurement point (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the first measuring position (Pre)” [0053]) and the at least one post-measurement point (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053]) by deflecting the measurement beam (“movable measuring beam deflection device 44 is displaceable in the direction of the arrows 46, 48 in order to deflect the optical measuring beam 28 in the desired manner” [0044]) on the workpiece (see mapping to Pfitzner); and…
wherein if the distance measurements are carried out at a plurality of post- measurement points (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053]), forming a post-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2) from the plurality of post-measurement points and positioning the post-measurement line… a pre-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in first/Pre measuring position, Fig. 2) formed from a plurality of pre-measurement points (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the first measuring position (Pre)” [0053])… the pre-measurement line… to the pre-measurement line…
PNG
media_image1.png
773
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation A – Fig. 2 of Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071 A1)
PNG
media_image2.png
674
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation B – Fig. 2 of Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071 A1)
if the distance measurements are carried out at a single post-measurement point (one of “plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053] when the “respective number of measuring points 74” is “adjusted” [0054] to be one), single post-measurement point… than each pre-measurement point (one of “plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the first measuring position (Pre)” [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pfitzner to (1) include an optical coherence tomograph, (2) include at least one pre-measurement point, at least one post-measurement point, and have said measurement lines consist of points. Pfitzner and Lessmueller are analogous arts because they both relate to optical measuring methods of a weld seam during processing. Pfitzner teaches (1) a matrix camera for optical measurement and (2) two post-measurement lines. Lessmueller teaches (1) an optical coherence tomograph for optical measurement, (2) pre- and post-measurement lines consisting of an adjustable number of points. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide (1) an optical coherence tomograph and (2) pre- and post-measurement lines consisting of points. By doing so, one would be able to (1) “measure height differences along an optical measuring beam axis in the micrometer range” [0004] and (2) achieve “assess the quality of the weld seam and to monitor compliance with certain standards” [0028], as identified by Lessmueller.
Modified Pfitzner does not explicitly teach positioning the single post-measurement point so as to be spaced apart from a line passing through the present welding position in the welding direction further in the direction toward the curved, solidified weld seam than each pre-measurement point. However, Pfitzner teaches a line (line tangent to predefined weld path 34 at a point intersecting section 68’, Fig. 2) passing through a present welding position (position of focal spot 56) in the welding direction (“weld direction R” [0052], Fig. 1) and the curved solidified weld seam (solidified melt 58, Fig. 2). If one of ordinary skill in the art were to reposition section 68 of Pfitzner to be positioned ahead of the present welding position in the first measuring position (Pre) of Lessmueller, and one were able to “adjust” the “respective number of measuring points 74 and the respective distance between the measuring points 74” [0054], then one would be able to position the single post-measurement point further in the direction toward the curved, solidified weld seam than each pre-measurement point. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to position the single post-measurement point in such a way. By doing so, one would be able to “adapt” measurements “according to the machining process” [0054], as identified by Lessmueller.
Regarding claim 2, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the post-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) is positioned by displacing the post-measurement line until (“one or more(detection field sections… are defined… based on the target or actual-position data of the laser beam 14 that describe the position of the weld path of the laser” [0051]; Being “defined” is construed as being “positioned”. “detection field sections selected for evaluation can reliably be defined in the detection field despite the constantly changing position and orientation of the weld seam… at always identical path sections relative to the focal spot of the laser beam moved over the workpieces” [0014]. For a weld seam path 34 that changes direction as in Fig. 2, reliably being defined in identical sections relative to a focal spot/processing position is construed as being positioned to be at a line center point as in Fig. 2; Pfitzner) a line center point (Central point of third measuring points 74 intersecting main machining path H, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) of the post-measurement line lies on the curved, solidified weld seam (solidified melt 58, Fig. 2; Pfitzner).
Regarding claim 3, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the post-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) and the pre- measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in first/Pre measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) run straight (Fig. 2 shows straight orientation of first and third measuring points 74 with respect to points within their respective group) or the post-measurement line and the pre-measurement line run in a curved fashion (“measuring device according to the invention can either first scan several of the lines 94 shown at the first measuring position (Pre) and then several of the lines 94 shown at the third measuring position (Post)” [0072]; Fig. 7 shows curved fashion of lines 94).
Regarding claim 4, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the post-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) is positioned in such a way that the post-measurement line intersects the curved, solidified weld seam (solidified melt 58, Fig. 2; Pfitzner) at an angle of 90°±10° (Fig. 2 of Pfitzner depicts second detection field sections 68 and 68' “that extend perpendicularly or approximately perpendicularly to the weld seam” [0021]. Third measuring points 74 of Lessmueller whose “exact scanning direction transverse to the direction of the main machining path H” can “differ from that in Fig. 2” can thus also have this perpendicular or approximately perpendicular orientation).
Regarding claim 5, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the pre- (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in first/Pre measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) and post-measurement lines (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) are identical (Fig. 2 of Lessmueller shows first and third measuring points 74 as identical).
Regarding claim 6, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the post-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) is moved into its measurement position (Orientation of section 68’, Fig. 2; Pfitzner) from an initial location (Orientation of section 68, Fig. 2), unrotated relative to the pre-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in first/Pre measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) and spaced apart equidistantly from the line, by displacing the post-measurement line by an offset (Fig. 2 of Pfitzner depicts second detection field sections 68 and 68' “that extend perpendicularly or approximately perpendicularly to the weld seam” [0021]. Given that “solidified melt 58, which forms the weld seam 36” [0052] is curved, sections 68 and 68’ are construed as offset relative to each other if both are perpendicular to the curved weld seam 36. Annotated reproductions of Fig. 2 which identify an offset and relative rotation can be found below) and/or by rotating the post-measurement line by a rotation angle (Annotated Fig. 2, designated Annotation B, shows that sections 68, 68’ are not parallel and thus rotated at some angle with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 8, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the post-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) is rotated relative (Annotated Fig. 2, designated Annotation B, shows that sections 68, 68’ are not parallel and thus rotated at some angle with respect to each other; Pfitzner) to the initial location (Orientation of section 68, Fig. 2; Pfitzner), non-offset and parallel to the pre-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in first/Pre measuring position, Fig. 2; Lessmueller), about an arbitrary point (Whatever point yields the relative angular orientation of sections 68, 68’ in Fig. 2; Pfitzner) into its measurement position (Orientation of section 68’, Fig. 2; Pfitzner).
Regarding claim 9, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the measurement position (position of one of third measuring points 74, Fig. 2; Lessmueller) of the single post-measurement point (one of “plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053] when the “respective number of measuring points 74” is “adjusted” [0054] to be one) is chosen so as to lie on (Fig. 2 of Lessmueller shows some of third measuring points 74 on the “already machined, cooled weld seam” [0053]. Single measuring point 74 can be chosen to be one of these so positioned points 74.) the curved, solidified weld seam (solidified melt 58, Fig. 2; Pfitzner).
Regarding claim 10, Pfitzner teaches a laser processing machine (laser scanner welding device 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a laser beam generator (“laser beam source” [0043]) for generating a processing laser beam (laser beam 14, Fig. 1),
a laser scanner (scan head 12, Fig. 1) for two-dimensionally deflecting the processing laser beam (“can be moved along or about axes of movement 16 arranged orthogonally to one another” [0043], Fig. 1) on a workpiece (workpieces 18, Fig. 1),… and
a machine controller (programmable control unit 32, Fig.1) configured to control the laser scanner (“serves to control (or regulate) the movement of the laser beam 14” [0046]) …
is programmed (“programmable” [0046]).
Pfitzner does not teach an optical coherence tomograph for generating an OCT measurement beam that is directed onto the workpiece by the laser scanner,
an OCT scanner disposed between the coherence tomograph and the laser scanner and configured to two-dimensionally deflect the OCT measurement beam on the workpiece,…
to control… the OCT scanner,
wherein the machine controller is programmed to position the post-measurement line or the single post-measurement point (Mpost) in accordance with the method according to claim 1.
Lessmueller teaches an optical coherence tomograph (optical coherence tomograph 16 (OCT) with an OCT measuring device 18, Fig. 1) for generating an OCT measurement beam (optical measuring beam 28, Fig. 2) that is directed onto (Fig. 1 shows beam 28 impinging on workpiece W) the workpiece (see mapping to Pfitzner) by the laser scanner (see mapping to Pfitzner),
an OCT scanner (movable measuring beam deflection device 44, Fig. 1) disposed between the coherence tomograph (Fig. 1 shows device 44 between tomograph 16 and movable further deflection device 64 of processing beam 56) and the laser scanner (see mapping to Pfitzner) and configured to two-dimensionally deflect the OCT measurement beam (“movable measuring beam deflection device 44 is displaceable in the direction of the arrows 46, 48” [0044]) on the workpiece,…
to control (“movable measuring beam deflection device 44 is displaceable… in the desired manner” [0044] is construed as to mean device 44 may be controlled)… the OCT scanner,
wherein the machine controller (see mapping to Pfitzner) is programmed (see mapping to Pfitzner) to position (“movable measuring beam deflection device 44 is displaceable… in the desired manner, i.e. in order to displace the optical measuring beam 28… a first measuring position (Pre)… or a third measuring position (Post)” [0044]) the post-measurement line (Line of plurality of measuring points 74 in third/Post measuring position, Fig. 2) or the single post-measurement point (Mpost) (one of “plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053] when the “respective number of measuring points 74” is “adjusted” [0054] to be one).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Pfitzner to (1) include an optical coherence tomograph and (2) position post-measurement lines/points. Pfitzner and Lessmueller are analogous arts because they both relate to optical measuring methods of a weld seam during processing. Pfitzner teaches (1) a matrix camera for optical measurement and (2) two post-measurement lines. Lessmueller teaches (1) an optical coherence tomograph for optical measurement, (2) pre- and post-measurement lines consisting of an adjustable number of points. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide (1) an optical coherence tomograph and (2) post-measurement lines consisting of points. By doing so, one would be able to (1) “measure height differences along an optical measuring beam axis in the micrometer range” [0004] and (2) achieve “assess the quality of the weld seam and to monitor compliance with certain standards” [0028], as identified by Lessmueller.
Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach in accordance with the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Pfitzner teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (control unit 32) having processor-executable instructions (“program” [0046] of control unit 32), wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors (programmable control unit 32, Fig.1), facilitate performance (see [0046]).
(“control data” [0010]) comprising code running on a machine controller of a laser processing machine (laser scanner welding device 10, Fig. 1).
Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach and adapted for carrying out all of the steps of the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Pfitzner teaches a method for monitoring (“highly reliable process monitoring”, [0031]) a curved solidified weld seam (solidified melt 58, Fig. 2) during the welding of a workpiece (workpieces 18, Fig. 1) using a processing laser beam (laser beam 14, Fig. 1) moving in a welding direction (“weld direction R” [0052], Fig. 1), the method comprising:
during the welding (“during the welding process” [0059]),…
monitoring the curved, solidified weld seam on the basis (“radiation emitted… in second detection field sections 68 and 68'… can be evaluated to determine one or more characteristic values… By comparing the characteristic value with a predefined (preferably experimentally determined) reference value, defects then can be detected in the weld seam.” [0059]; Measurements at sections 68, 68’ are used to detect defects. Repeated measurements at 68, 68’ is construed as monitoring the weld seam.) of the distance measurements.
Pfitzner teaches the welding direction and the workpiece but does not teach outputting a measurement beam of an optical coherence tomograph both at at least one pre-measurement point situated upstream of a present welding position relative to the welding direction, and at at least one post-measurement point situated downstream of the present welding position relative to the welding direction;
carrying out distance measurements at both the at least one pre-measurement point and the at least one post-measurement point by deflecting the measurement beam on the workpiece;
based on a determination that the distance measurements are carried out at a plurality of post-measurement points:
forming a post-measurement line from the plurality of post-measurement points,… based on a determination that the distance measurements are carried out at a single post-measurement point.
Lessmueller teaches outputting a measurement beam (optical measuring beam 28, Fig. 1) of an optical coherence tomograph (optical coherence tomograph 16 (OCT) with an OCT measuring device 18, Fig. 1) both at at least one pre-measurement point (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the first measuring position (Pre)” [0053]) situated upstream of a present welding position (current processing position 76, Fig. 2) relative to a welding direction (machining direction BR, Fig. 2), and at at least one post-measurement point (“plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053]) situated downstream (“third measuring position (post) is located behind the intended current machining position” [0044], Fig. 2) of the present welding position relative to the welding direction (see Fig. 2);
carrying out distance measurements (“height information of the scanned measuring points 74” [0055], Fig. 2) at both the at least one pre-measurement point and the at least one post-measurement point (measuring points 74 in Pre and Post areas are for “measuring”) by deflecting the measurement beam on the workpiece (“movable measuring beam deflection device 44 is displaceable in the direction of the arrows 46, 48 in order to deflect the optical measuring beam 28 in the desired manner… either to shift to a first measuring position (Pre)… or a third measuring position (Post)” [0044]);
based on a determination that the distance measurements are carried out at a plurality of post-measurement points (“the respective number of measuring points 74… can be adapted” [0054] is construed as a “determination” of a plurality of points when “number” of points is chosen to be greater than one as in Fig. 2):
forming a post-measurement line (arrangement of measuring points 74 in Post position in Fig. 2 is construed as a line) from the plurality of post-measurement points,…
based on a determination that the distance measurements are carried out at a single post-measurement point (“the respective number of measuring points 74… can be adapted” [0054] is construed as a “determination” of a singularity of points when “number” of points is chosen to be one).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pfitzner to (1) include an optical coherence tomograph, (2) include at least one pre-measurement point, at least one post-measurement point, and have said measurement lines consist of points. Pfitzner and Lessmueller are analogous arts because they both relate to optical measuring methods of a weld seam during processing. Pfitzner teaches (1) a matrix camera for optical measurement and (2) two post-measurement lines. Lessmueller teaches (1) an optical coherence tomograph for optical measurement, (2) pre- and post-measurement lines consisting of an adjustable number of points. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide (1) an optical coherence tomograph and (2) pre- and post-measurement lines consisting of points. By doing so, one would be able to (1) “measure height differences along an optical measuring beam axis in the micrometer range” [0004] and (2) achieve “assess the quality of the weld seam and to monitor compliance with certain standards” [0028], as identified by Lessmueller.
Pfitzner teaches positioning (“detection field sections… are defined… based on the target or actual-position data of the laser beam 14 that describe the position of the weld path of the laser” [0051]. Being “defined” is construed as being “positioned”) preceding (detection field sections 68, Fig. 2) and following measurement lines (detection field sections 68’, Fig. 2) offset relative to each other (Annotation A, an annotation of Fig. 2 shows offset within circles at ends of section 68 relative to section 68’ on pg. 13 of this Office Action), wherein the offset is in the direction of the preceding measurement line toward the curved, solidified weld seam (Offset is construed as being directed toward weld seam as section 68 is situated closer to the weld seam that the projection of section 68’ at the location along the seam of section 68 would be), and rotating the following measurement line in the direction toward the normal to the curved, solidified weld seam (Annotated Fig. 2, designated Annotation B, shows that sections 68, 68’ are not parallel and thus rotated at some angle with respect to each other). Lessmueller teaches positioning the post-measurement line, the pre-measurement line formed from a plurality of pre-measurement points (arrangement of measuring points 74 in Pre position in Fig. 2 is construed as a line). If one of ordinary skill in the art were to have modified Pfitzner over Lessmueller, so that the relative offsets between Pfitzner’s detection sections 68, 68’ would apply to the Pre and Post plurality of measuring points 74 of Lessmueller, then Modified Pfitzner would teach positioning the post-measurement line so as to be offset relative to a pre- measurement line formed from a plurality of pre-measurement points, wherein the offset is in the direction of the pre-measurement line toward the curved, solidified weld seam, and
rotating the post-measurement line relative to the pre-measurement line in the direction toward the normal to the curved, solidified weld seam.
Pfitzner teaches positioning a detection section so as to be spaced apart from a line passing through the present welding position in the welding direction further in the direction toward the curved, solidified weld seam (detection section 68’ is positioned closer toward line tangent to welding path 34 as compared to superimposed detection section 68 at position of section 68’). Lessmueller teaches a single post-measurement point (one of “plurality of measuring points 74” in “the area of the third measuring position (Post)” [0053] when the “respective number of measuring points 74” is “adjusted” [0054] to be one). If one of ordinary skill in the art were to have modified Pfitzner over Lessmueller, so that the positioning of Pfitzner’s detection sections 68, 68’ would apply to the Pre and Post singularity of measuring points 74 of Lessmueller, then Modified Pfitzner would teach positioning the single post-measurement point so as to be spaced apart from a line passing through the present welding position in the welding direction further in the direction toward the curved, solidified weld seam than each pre-measurement point.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071 A1), hereinafter Pfitzner, further in view of Lessmueller et al. (DE 102016014564 A1), hereinafter Lessmueller, and Imbert et al. (US 20110083512 A1), hereinafter Imbert.
Regarding claim 7, Pfitzner and Lessmueller teach the method according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the offset (difference between section lengths/orientations of sections 68, 68’, Fig. 2; Pfitzner) and/or the rotation angle (Annotated Fig. 2, designated Annotation B, shows that sections 68, 68’ are not parallel and thus rotated at some angle with respect to each other; Pfitzner) are/is determined on the basis… of the curved, solidified weld seam (solidified melt 58, Fig. 2; Pfitzner).
Modified Pfitzner does not teach of a calculated position.
Imbert teaches of a calculated position (“calculate the angle position .alpha..sub.S of the weld seam line for tracking by probe 2” [0053], Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pfitzner to determine an offset/angle based on a calculated seam position. Pfitzner, Lessmueller, and Imbert are analogous arts because they all relate to measuring methods of a weld seam during processing. Pfitzner teaches that sections 68, 68’ are located at fixed positions based on the previously known path curve along weld seam 36 and that sections 68, 68’ are at least approximately perpendicular to a weld seam. Lessmueller a main machining path H. Imbert teaches calculating an angle position of a weld seam line for adjusting tracking with a probe. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to “previously know” the curve of a weld seam by calculation. By doing so, one would be able to improve processing accuracy by ensuring that a seam curve path corresponds with measured rather than ideal data.
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 ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761