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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 07/14/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 13-15 have been amended.
With respect to Specification Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Specification filed on 07/14/2026 have overcome the Specification Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/16/2026.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/14/2026 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/16/2026, except for the limitations “a workpiece surface” recited in claim 10 (line 1), see detail in the Claim Objections section below. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/14/2026 have created another Claim Objections, see detail in the Claim Objections section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/14/2026 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/16/2026, see detail in the Claim Interpretation section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/14/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/16/2026, except for the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections regarding the limitation “evaluation unit” recited in claim 10, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections regarding the limitation “the wake of the point” recited in claim 15 (last 2 lines of claim 15), see detail in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections:
Applicant alleged that the amendments to claim 10: “evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor to analyze features of said workpiece surface based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optical system is imaged on said image sensor” filed on 07/14/2026 would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/16/2026 – see detail on pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 07/14/2026, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitation “evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor to analyze features of said workpiece surface based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optical system is imaged on said image sensor” still invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as explained in detail in the Claim Interpretation section below. Furthermore, the structure of the evaluation unit is not provided in the originally filed disclosure, as explained in detail in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections below. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement; and claim 10 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See detail below in the Claim Interpretation section and the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Specifically, the newly added limitation “wherein the first plane intersects the workpiece surface at a first line of intersection, the second plane intersects the workpiece surface at a second line of intersection, and the distance between the first line of intersection and the second line of intersection is referred to as the predetermined offset” to the independent claim 1 has changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the newly cited reference Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0234805 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Schwarz’805) is applied to this office action to teach the newly added limitation “wherein the first plane intersects the workpiece surface at a first line of intersection, the second plane intersects the workpiece surface at a second line of intersection, and the distance between the first line of intersection and the second line of intersection is referred to as the predetermined offset” as recited in claim 1.
In addition, the previously cited prior art Hutchin (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0103410 A1) is no longer used in any rejections in this Office Action. Therefore, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 07/14/2026 regarding the prior art Hutchin, are moot.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art of record Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1, previously cited), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s Arguments: (Regarding claim 1 – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 07/14/2026)
Applicant alleged: “Avdokhin mentions a chromatic lens system 16, which causes chromatic aberration in laser light with multiple wavelengths (Avdokhin, para. [0045]). The Office concludes that a person skilled in the art would replace Schwarz's optical system 38, 40 with Avdokhin's chromatic lens system 16 in order to improve image resolution.
However, even if light from the second light source 26 of Schwarz reaches the first optical sensor 30 via the optical elements 38, 40, the image resolution would not be improved, because the sensor surface of the first optical sensor 30 is not adapted to the second light source.” – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 07/14/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because Applicant characterizes the rejection as proposing to replace the optical system of Schwarz’775, including optical system 38, 40 with Avdokhin’s chromatic lens system 16, however, that is not the modification relied upon in the rejection. In this case, the primary reference Schwarz’775 already discloses an optical measuring system that operates with different wavelength ranges. Specifically, Schwarz’775 discloses a first light source 20 having a wavelength of about 660 nm and a second light source 28 having a wavelength of about 620 nm. Schwarz’775 further discloses an optical system in which imaging on the first and second optical sensors is performed through objective lens 38, which is jointly used by both optical sensors, together with respective ocular lenses associated with the individual sensor paths, as shown in Fig.1B of Schwarz’775. Thus, Schwarz’775 already discloses the first wavelength range, the second wavelength range, the optical system, and the corresponding sensing arrangement. The secondary reference Avdokhin is relied upon only for the additional reaching concerning the wavelength-dependent refractive behavior of refractive optics. Specifically, Avdokhin teaches that in a multi-wavelength optical system, chromatic aberration results from material dispersion, namely variations in the index of refraction with wavelength. Avdokhin further teaches that different indices of refraction cause the focal length of a lens to depend on wavelength, such that different wavelengths focus at different focal distances. Accordingly, Avdokhin provides the missing teaching that the refractive optics have different refractive indices for different wavelength ranges. Therefore, the proposed combination does not require replacing the Schwarz’775 optical system with an entirely different optical architecture. Rather, the modification merely applies Avdokhin’s teaching concerning wavelength’s dependent refractive index to the existing multi-wavelength optical system of Schwarz’775. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to configure or select the refractive optics of Schwarz’775 in accordance with Avdokhin’s teaching in order to account for and control the wavelength-dependent focusing of the different wavelength ranges already used by Schwarz’775, thereby providing the desired focal characteristics for the respective optical paths. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”.
Furthermore, Applicant alleges that “even if light from the second light source 26 of Schwarz reaches the first optical sensor 30 via the optical elements 38, 40, the image resolution would not be improved, because the sensor surface of the first optical sensor 30 is not adapted to the second light source.” – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 07/14/2026, Examiner respectfully disagrees because this argument does not address the actual proposed combination. The rejection does not require the second wavelength light to be imaged by the first optical sensor 30, nor does it require the first optical sensor 30 to be adapted to the second wavelength range. As set forth in the rejection, Schwarz’775 already provides separate optical sensing functions for the different wavelength ranges. The first optical sensor 30 is associated with the triangulation light imaging function, while the second optical sensor 34 is associated with imaging of the illuminated joining region. At the same time, Schwarz’775 discloses that objective lens 38 is jointly used in the optical system for imaging on both sensors. It is noted that sensor adaption and refractive behavior are separate considerations. Avdokhin’s teaching concerns the optical behavior of refractive elements when different wavelengths propagate through them, not whether a particular sensor is optimized for both wavelengths. Moreover, Schwarz’775 discloses that the two optical sensors are optimized for different purposes. The first optical sensor is used for high speed triangulation imaging, while the second optical sensor is used for grayscale imaging of the joining region. Thus, Applicant’s observation that the first sensor is not adapted to the second light source is consistent with Schwarz’775 disclosure and does not undermine the modification. Accordingly, the combination is not based on replacing Schwarz’775 optical system or rerouting the second wavelength to the first optical sensor 30. Rather, Schwarz’775 already discloses multi-wavelength optical measuring system, and Avdokhin is relied upon for the relationship between wavelength and refractive index in refractive optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them in order to account for and control the focal behavior of the different wavelength ranges used by the system.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims are the same as those provided for the independent claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim 1 above generally applies to dependent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a line of intersection of the second plane with said workpiece surface” in lines 2-3. Claim 6 depends on claim 1. However, claim 1 already recites “the second plane intersects the workpiece surface at a second line of intersection” previously in claim 1 (third line from the bottom of the claim 1). Therefore, the limitation “a line of intersection” recited in claim 6 (line 2) should be changed to “the second line of intersection” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a workpiece surface” in line 1. Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a workpiece surface” in line 1. It is understood that “a workpiece surface” recited in claim 10 (line 1) and “a workpiece surface” recited in claim 1 (line 1) are the same workpiece surface. Therefore, the limitation “a workpiece surface” recited in claim 10 (line 1) should be changed to “the workpiece surface” or “said workpiece surface” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 1).
Claims 11-15 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “claim10” in line 2. There should be a space between “claim” and “10”.
Claim 15 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least a second wavelength range” in line 10. This should be changed to “at least one of the second wavelength range” or “the at least one second wavelength range” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 and in claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“light line unit for radiating the light line of the first wavelength range” in claim 10 (line 5). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “for radiating the light line of the first wavelength range” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “light line unit” will be interpreted as “laser” and equivalents, as indicated by Par.0036 of the specification: “The light line unit may provide or generate a continuous straight light line. In other words, the light line unit may provide a fan-shaped light beam. The light beam may be radiated perpendicularly onto the workpiece surface. In this case, the first plane may be perpendicular to the workpiece surface. The light line unit for radiating the light line may be a laser device or may comprise a laser device.”, and Par.0066 of the specification: “The light line unit 18 may be configured as a line laser.”.
“illumination unit for radiating light of the at least one second wavelength range” in claim 10 (line 6). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “for radiating light of the at least one second wavelength range” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “illumination unit” will be interpreted as “LED” and equivalents, as indicated by Par.0035 of the specification: “The illumination unit may comprise a colored LED or an LED that emits in the second wavelength range.”.
“evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor to analyze features of said workpiece surface based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optical system is imaged on said image sensor” in claim 10 (lines 7-10). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor to analyze features of said workpiece surface based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optical system is imaged on said image sensor” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification and the drawings of the Instant Application do not describe the structure(s) of the “evaluation unit”, see detailed explanation in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor to analyze features of said workpiece surface based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optical system is imaged on said image sensor” in lines 7-10. This claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the Claim Interpretation section above.
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Disclosure that an invention "may be controlled by known differential pressure, valving and control equipment" was not a disclosure of any structure corresponding to the claimed "control means for operating [a] valving " and the claim was held indefinite).
Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph).
The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 493 (CCPA 1973) ("[The sixth paragraph of section 112] cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description requirement of the first paragraph … or to the definiteness requirement found in the second paragraph of section 112. Means-plus-function language can be used in the claims, but the claims must still accurately define the invention.").
In this case, the specification of the Instant Application describes: “The evaluation may be performed using known methods for image processing and analysis. Evaluating the image may comprise evaluating the captured image row-by-row and/or column-by-column. The evaluation may be carried out using known machine learning methods.” in Par.0081. However, the structure of the evaluation unit is not described in the specification. Furthermore, the drawings of the Instant Application do not illustrate the evaluation unit, this is also indicated by Par.0065 of the specification of the Instant Application; specifically, Par.0065 describes: “The analysis device 10 comprises a sensor device 12 with an image sensor 14 for capturing an image and optics 16 for imaging light on the image sensor 14 and may comprise an evaluation unit (not shown) for evaluating the image captured by image sensor 14.”. Therefore, the specification and drawings of the Instant Application do not describe what structure(s) define the evaluation unit. Rather, the specification merely repeats substantially the claimed language. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to what structures correspond to the claimed function. As a result of this deficiency, claim 10 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor to analyze features of said workpiece surface based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optical system is imaged on said image sensor” in lines 7-10. This claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is noted that specification of the Instant Application describes: “The evaluation may be performed using known methods for image processing and analysis. Evaluating the image may comprise evaluating the captured image row-by-row and/or column-by-column. The evaluation may be carried out using known machine learning methods.” in Par.0081. However, the structure of evaluation unit is not described in the specification. Furthermore, the drawings of the Instant Application do not illustrate the evaluation unit, this is also indicated by Par.0065 of the specification of the Instant Application; specifically, Par.0065 describes: “The analysis device 10 comprises a sensor device 12 with an image sensor 14 for capturing an image and optics 16 for imaging light on the image sensor 14 and may comprise an evaluation unit (not shown) for evaluating the image captured by image sensor 14.”. Therefore, the specification and drawings of the Instant Application fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Thus, claim 10 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 11-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the wake of the point” in the last two lines of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “wake of the point” was not recited previously in any of claims 1, 10, 14, 15.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Schwarz’775) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0234805 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Schwarz’805).
Regarding claim 1, Schwarz’775 discloses a method for analyzing a workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B or see Schwarz’775 annotated Fig.3 below) for a laser machining process (Schwarz’775 Par.0047 discloses: “The optical measuring device 100, 200 according to the invention and a joining head or a laser welding head 300 which use said measuring device are particularly advantageously suitable for inspecting or measuring a joint seam 14”), comprising the steps of:
radiating a flat fan-shaped light beam of light (light fan 22, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “The optical measuring device 100 comprises at least one light-section device 18 with a first light source 20, which is suitable for casting a light fan 22 in the direction of the workpiece 16 to be joined in order to create a triangulation light line 24 within the joining region 10 on the workpiece 16 to be joined”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.) of a first wavelength range (“a wavelength of 660 nm”, Schwarz’775 Par.0050) (Schwarz’775 Par.0050 discloses: “A diode laser with 50 mW to 100 mW optical power and a wavelength of 660 nm is preferably used as first light source 20 of the light-fan device 18”) to generate a light line (light line 24, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B & Par.0050) on said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B or see Schwarz’775 annotated Fig.3 below) and illuminating said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B or see Schwarz’775 annotated Fig.3 below) with light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) of at least a second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz’775 Par.0055) (Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses: “The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres.”);
capturing an image of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B or see Schwarz’775 annotated Fig.3 below) by means of a sensor device (sensor device comprises optical sensors 30, 34 and lenses 38, 40, 42; Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “The optical measuring device 100 according to the invention furthermore comprises a first optical sensor 30 which, in a spatially resolved manner, images the light line 24 projected onto the workpiece 16 and the joint seam 14 via a first observation beam path 32, and a second optical sensor 34 which, in a spatially resolved manner, images the joining region 10 and more particularly the joint seam 14 on the surface of the workpiece 16 via a second observation beam path 36.”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.), which comprises an image sensor (sensors 30 and 34 shown Schwarz’775 Fig.1B are image sensors because Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “the first and second optical sensors 30, 34 are preferably embodied as CCD-matrix camera sensors, more particularly as CMOS camera sensors”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.) and an optical system (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) for imaging light on said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0039 discloses: “Imaging on the first sensor 30 and the second optical sensor 34 is brought about via an objective lens 38, which is jointly used by the first optical sensor 30 and the second optical sensor 34, and via a first ocular lens 40, arranged upstream of the first optical sensor 30 in the observation direction, and via a second ocular lens 42, arranged upstream of the second optical sensor 34 in the observation direction.”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.),
wherein a first plane defined by a plane of the flat fan-shaped light beam (“plane of the light fan 22”, Schwarz’775 Par.0051), said optical system (lenses 38 and 40, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) and said image sensor (sensor 30, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) are arranged in a Scheimpflug arrangement (Schwarz’775 Par.0051 discloses lenses 38 and 40, and image sensor 30 are arranged in Scheimpflug arrangement; specifically, Schwarz’775 Par.0051 discloses: “In the embodiment of the invention shown in FIG. 1B, the sensor surface of the first optical sensor 30 is tuned to the plane of the light fan 22 such that the triangulation light line 24 is always imaged in focus on the sensor area. This is achieved by virtue of the fact that, taking into account the optical components 38, 43 and 40, the plane of the sensor area of the first optical sensor 30 and the plane of the light fan 22 satisfy the so-called Scheimpflug condition. The Scheimpflug condition is satisfied, i.e. the desired object plane (corresponding to the plane of the light fan 22) is imaged with maximum sharpness, if object plane, objective plane and image plane (corresponding to the plane of the sensor area of the first optical sensor 30) intersect at a common line.”); and
evaluating the image to analyze features of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B or see Schwarz’775 annotated Fig.3 below) (Schwarz’775 Par.0058 discloses: “According to the invention, the measuring device 100 or 200 furthermore has an image processing unit, which images the image data obtained from the second optical sensor 34 onto a grid model of a topographic image, which was obtained by evaluating the profile of the triangulation light line 24, in order to create a calculated model view of a three-dimensional joint seam 14. To this end, use can be made of known mapping techniques. Thus, this method achieves an optimum simultaneous representation of two-dimensional and three-dimensional information. By rotating or changing the view of the extended 3D grid model, it is possible to see and assess the surface of the joint seam 14 together with the spatial information.”), and a second plane (second plane is the plane for which the light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28 of the second wavelength range is imaged sharply on the sensor plane of the image sensor 34 by the optics 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) for which the light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) of the second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz’775 Par.0055) (Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses: “The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres.”) from said optical system (lens 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) is imaged on said image sensor (sensor 34, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schwarz’775 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said optical system has different refractive indices for the first and second wavelength ranges,
the evaluating is based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane, and
wherein the first plane intersects the workpiece surface at a first line of intersection, the second plane intersects the workpiece surface at a second line of intersection, and the distance between the first line of intersection and the second line of intersection is referred to as the predetermined offset
Avdokhin teaches a laser processing method (Avdokhin Par.0001):
wherein said optics (chromatic lens system 16, Avdokhin Figs.8A-8B) has different refractive indices for the first and second wavelength ranges (Avdokhin Par.0045 teaches: “With broadband laser source 12 and with multiple laser wavelengths, a monochromatic processing lens design will generally exhibit so-called chromatic aberrations. These aberrations are a result of material dispersion, variations in the index of refraction with wavelength. With different indices of refraction, the focal length of the lens depends on the wavelength, and results in axial chromatic aberration where different wavelengths focus at different focal distances.”; therefore, Avdokhin teaches optics has different refractive indices for different wavelength ranges)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwarz’775, by adding the teaching of optics has different refractive indices for the first and second wavelength ranges, as taught by Avdokhin, in order to account for and control the wavelength-dependent refraction of the different wavelength light passing through the optical system, thereby controlling the respective focal positions of the different wavelength ranges so that the light of each wavelength range can be properly focused and imaged by the corresponding sensor.
Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin does not teach:
the evaluating is based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane,
wherein the first plane intersects the workpiece surface at a first line of intersection, the second plane intersects the workpiece surface at a second line of intersection, and the distance between the first line of intersection and the second line of intersection is referred to as the predetermined offset
Schwarz’805 teaches a laser control method (Schwarz’805 Abstract):
the evaluating is based on a predetermined offset (predetermined distance d, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) on the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) between the first plane (plane of the light fan 40, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) and the second plane (plane of the light fan 48, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) (Schwarz’805 teaches the evaluating is based on the predetermined distance d on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane because Schwarz’805 Par.0014 teaches: “A welding head for joining by means of welding or soldering is thus provided, in which the monitoring of the weld or solder seam is carried out by recording the geometry of the seam to be joined by means of a line of light running in front and comparing these recorded data with the data recorded by means of a line of light running behind, which images the joined seam. In this case, a processing unit is provided in the welding head, which compares the recorded geometrical data before the joining process and after the joining process so that the data at the same respective workpiece site can be compared with one another. According to the invention, this may be done by determining the joining displacement traveled on the basis of integrating a known joining speed, which corresponds to the speed of the welding head or the speed of the at least one camera which is rigidly connected to the welding head, the joining displacement traveled being compared with the known predetermined distance between the line of light running in front and the line of light running behind, so that a time difference between the reference data and the measurement data can be calculated. From the comparison of the reference data, the geometry of the joint seam can therefore be determined independently of irregularities in the workpiece to be joined in the region of the seam to be joined, and quality monitoring can be carried out in an ongoing joining process.”; additionally, Schwarz’805 Pars.0051-0052 teaches evaluate distance d to control/maintain focal position, specifically, Schwarz’805 Par.0051 teaches: “Since, for an optimal joining process, the focus of the working laser beam 12 should always extend at a predetermined height along the sites to be joined, the distance d between the lines of light recorded by the camera 24 is evaluated by the control unit 54 (FIG. 1) and, by controlling an actuator (not shown) for an upward or downward movement of the housing 14 (see arrow B), is regulated to a predetermined distance d which in turn corresponds to an optimal focal position of the working laser beam 12 on the joint site 56.”, Schwarz’805 Par.0052 teaches: “Thus, a constant predetermined distance d between the line of light 42 of the first light fan device 32 and the line of light 50 of the second light fan device 34 can be maintained by the control unit 54 during the joining process.”; furthermore, Schwarz’805 Pars.0058-0059 teaches that the processing unit compares the joining displacement with the predetermined distance d in order to determine the correct time offset between the reference data and the measurement data corresponding to the same workpiece location),
wherein the first plane (plane of the light fan 40, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) intersects the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) at a first line of intersection (line of light 42, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) (Schwarz’805 Par.0048 teaches: “The line of light 42 of the first light fan device 32 is projected onto the workpiece 16”), the second plane (plane of the light fan 48, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) intersects the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) at a second line of intersection (line of light 50, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) (Schwarz’805 Par.0049 teaches: “the line of light 50 generated by the second light fan device 34 on the workpiece 16”) (Schwarz’805 Par.0045 teaches: “according to the invention it is advantageous for the first light fan device 32 and the second light fan device 34 respectively to generate light fans 40 and 48 which lie in an emission plane, so that straight lines of light 42 and 50 are respectively projected onto the surface of the workpiece 16”), and the distance (distance d, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) between the first line of intersection (line of light 42, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) and the second line of intersection (line of light 50, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) is referred to as the predetermined offset (predetermined distance d, Schwarz’805 Fig.2A) (as explained in detail in the previous paragraph regarding Schwarz’805 teaches the evaluating is based on the predetermined distance d on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin, by adding the teaching of the evaluating is based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane, wherein the first plane intersects the workpiece surface at a first line of intersection, the second plane intersects the workpiece surface at a second line of intersection, and the distance between the first line of intersection and the second line of intersection is referred to as the predetermined offset, as taught by Schwarz’805, in order to improve the accuracy and robustness of measuring the workpiece surface and weld seam by providing a predetermined spatial reference, thereby enabling more precise determination of height variations of the weld seam and reducing sensitivity to alignment and geometric errors caused by the physical arrangement and alignment of the optical system relative to the workpiece. Therefore, the modification would improve determination of the workpiece surface geometry.
Regarding claim 2, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz’775 also discloses:
wherein the first plane is arranged perpendicularly to said workpiece surface and/or wherein an optical axis of said optical system (optical axis of lens 38, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B & Par.0051) and/or an optical axis of said sensor device form an acute angle with the first plane (“plane of the light fan 22”, Schwarz’775 Par.0051) (It is noted that the limitation “wherein the first plane is arranged perpendicularly to said workpiece surface and/or wherein an optical axis of said optics and/or an optical axis of said sensor device form an acute angle with the first plane” recited in claim 2 is in alternative form. In this case, Schwarz’775 discloses the optical axis of lens 38 forms an acute angle with the plane of the light fan 22 because Schwarz’775 Par.0051 discloses: “As furthermore shown in FIGS. 1A, 1B and 3, the plane of the light fan 22 is not parallel to the optical axis of the objective lens 38 or to the optical axis L of the focussing lens 54.”; since the plane of the light fan 22 is not parallel to the optical axis of the objective lens 38, they must intersect at some point to form at least one acute angle).
Regarding claim 3, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz’775 also discloses:
wherein the features of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) include a weld seam (joint seam 14, Schwarz’775 Figs.1B & 3) or a joint edge (It is noted that the limitation “a weld seam or a joint edge” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Schwarz’775 discloses features of the surface of workpiece 16 includes weld seam because Schwarz’775 Par.0027 discloses: “Here, the joining device can expediently be a laser-welding device, a gas metal arc welding device or an adhesive-bead device.”, and Schwarz’775 Pars.0051-0052 disclose two-dimensional evaluation of the height profile of the joint seam 14) and an optical axis of said sensor device and/or an optical axis of said optical system (optical axis of lens 38, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B & Par.0051) lie in a plane which extends perpendicularly to said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (It is noted that the limitation “an optical axis of said sensor device and/or an optical axis of said optics” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Schwarz’775 discloses the optical axis of lens 38 lies in a plane which extends perpendicularly to the surface of the workpiece 16 because Schwarz’775 Par.0051 discloses: “Since, during a joining process, the workpiece surface is generally held perpendicularly on the optical axis of a focussing lens 52 for a work laser beam 50 or perpendicular to an optical axis of an objective lens 38, a vertical deflection level with the surface of the workpiece 16 leads to a horizontal deflection of the laser light line 24 on the workpiece surface, as shown in FIG. 3.”) and in parallel to the weld seam (joint seam 14, Schwarz’775 Figs.1B & 3) or joint edge (It is noted that the limitation “the weld seam or joint edge” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, since the optical axis of lens 38 lies in a plane which extends perpendicularly to the surface of the workpiece 16, and see the locations of the optical axis of lens 38 and the joint seam 14 in Schwarz’775 Figs.1B & 3, thus, the optical axis of lens 38 lies in plane that is in parallel to the joint seam 14).
Regarding claim 4, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz’775 also discloses:
wherein the first wavelength range comprises blue light with a wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm, and/or wherein the second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz’775 Par.0055) comprises red light with a wavelength of 620 nm to 720 nm, and/or wherein a third wavelength range comprises light with a wavelength of 720 nm (It is noted that the limitation “wherein the first wavelength range comprises blue light, with a wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm, and/or wherein the second wavelength range comprises red light, and/or wherein a third wavelength range comprises light with a wavelength of 720 nm” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was requited during examination. In this case, Schwarz’775 discloses the second wavelength of 620 nanometres as indicated by Schwarz’775 Par.0055 and as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. It is known that wavelength of 620 nm is red light, and the second wavelength of 620 nanometres overlaps with the claimed ranges required by the claim 4. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the prior art Schwarz’775 discloses the second wavelength of 620 nanometres, which overlaps at the end point (620 nm) with the claimed second wavelength; and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.).
Regarding claim 6, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz’775 also discloses
wherein a partial area of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) surrounds a line of intersection of the second plane (second plane is the plane for which the light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28 of the second wavelength range is imaged sharply on the sensor plane of the image sensor 34 by the optics 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) with said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (since the second plane is the plane for which the light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28 of the second wavelength range is imaged sharply on the sensor plane of the image sensor 34 by the optics 42, thus, partial area of the top surface of the workpiece 16 surrounds a line of intersection of the second plane with the top surface of the workpiece 16), and
wherein evaluating the image comprises: evaluating intensity data of light (Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses the sensor 34 is greyscale image sensor, which is optimized for capturing a greyscale image; it is known that the greyscale image sensor works by directly measuring the intensity of light (photons) hitting its surface; therefore, Schwarz’775 discloses evaluating intensity data of light) of the second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz’775 Par.0055) (Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses: “The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres.”) in an area of the image corresponding to the partial area (the area of the top surface of the workpiece 16 that surrounds the line of intersection of the second plane and the top surface of the workpiece 16, as explained previously) in order to obtain a gray image of the partial area (Schwarz’775 discloses evaluating intensity data of light of the second wavelength range in an area of the image corresponding to the partial area in order to obtain a gray image of the partial area because Schwarz’775 Par.0014 discloses: “Thus, the first optical sensor records an image of a triangulation laser line projected onto the workpiece and the second sensor records a greyscale image for identifying fault positions in the joint seam. Imaging on the sensor areas of the two sensors is brought about by means of a common objective lens and respectively associated ocular lenses. This makes it possible to create a very compact and robust measuring device, in which the sensors are arranged fixed in space with respect to one another in order to generate a three-dimensional mapped illustration of the joint seam by evaluating the two-dimensional greyscale value image and the profile of the laser triangulation line.”, and Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses: “The second optical sensor 34 is preferably a greyscale image sensor, which is optimized for capturing a greyscale image. Thus, according to the invention, an imaging ratio of 1:1 is selected for imaging the joint seam 14 on the sensor area of the second optical sensor 34; this is done in order to be able, if possible, to detect small faults within the joint seam 14 as well…. The second optical sensor 34 preferably has a lin-log characteristic in order, as a result of its great dynamic range, to do justice to the reflection properties of welding or soldering seams in an optimum fashion. The homogenous illumination of the joining region 10 by means of the at least one illumination device 26 is preferably brought about using a second light source 28 which is embodied as a light-emitting diode. Here, the incident direction of the illumination can be tuned to the corresponding application. The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres. By using a second optical filter 46, which is embodied as an optical band-pass filter, only the component of the diode illumination from the second light source 28 is imaged on the sensor area of the second optical sensor 34.”).
Regarding claim 9, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz’775 also discloses a method for machining a workpiece (workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) using a laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz’775 Fig.3), in particular laser welding or laser cutting (Schwarz’775 Par.0027 discloses laser welding), comprising:
radiating the laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) onto a point (joining position 48, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) along a machining path (region 12 in direction represented by the arrow in Schwarz’775 Fig.3) on the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.3 or see Schwarz’775 annotated Fig.3 in the rejection of claim 1 above);
the method according to claim 1 (the method as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the light line (light line 24, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B & Par.0050) is radiated onto said workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) in advance and/or in a wake of the point (It is noted that the limitation “in advance and/or in a wake” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Schwarz’775 discloses the light line is radiated onto the top surface of the workpiece 16 in advance because Schwarz’775 Par.0041 discloses: “According to the invention, provision is made not only for an optical measuring device 100 or 200 for monitoring a joining region 10 in a workpiece 16, but also for a joining head which uses the optical measuring device 100 or 200 according to the invention. By way of example, a joining head according to the invention can be embodied as laser welding head 300 (as e.g. shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B), as gas metal arc welding head or as adhesive-bead head. In general, a joining head should be understood to mean any device which can be used for producing a joint seam for joining a workpiece or two different workpieces. Here, the joint seam 14 can be the seam connecting the workpieces; however, it is also feasible for an adhesive-bead head to apply an adhesive bead to a workpiece and for this adhesive bead to be inspected during application in terms of its quality by means of the optical measuring device 100, 200 according to the invention. After the inspection, a second workpiece is applied to the applied adhesive bead and pressed against the workpiece to be bonded in order to create an adhesive bond.”).
Regarding claim 10, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz’775 also discloses an analysis device (optical measuring device 200, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) for analyzing a workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) (Schwarz’775 Par.0047 discloses: “The optical measuring device 100, 200 according to the invention and a joining head or a laser welding head 300 which use said measuring device are particularly advantageously suitable for inspecting or measuring a joint seam 14”), comprising:
the sensor device (sensor device comprises sensors 30, 34 and lenses 38, 40, 42; Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) with the image sensor (sensors 30 and 34 shown Schwarz’775 Fig.1B are image sensors because Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “the first and second optical sensors 30, 34 are preferably embodied as CCD-matrix camera sensors, more particularly as CMOS camera sensors”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.) for capturing the image (Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “The optical measuring device 100 according to the invention furthermore comprises a first optical sensor 30 which, in a spatially resolved manner, images the light line 24 projected onto the workpiece 16 and the joint seam 14 via a first observation beam path 32, and a second optical sensor 34 which, in a spatially resolved manner, images the joining region 10 and more particularly the joint seam 14 on the surface of the workpiece 16 via a second observation beam path 36.”) and optical system (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) for imaging light on said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0039 discloses: “Imaging on the first sensor 30 and the second optical sensor 34 is brought about via an objective lens 38, which is jointly used by the first optical sensor 30 and the second optical sensor 34, and via a first ocular lens 40, arranged upstream of the first optical sensor 30 in the observation direction, and via a second ocular lens 42, arranged upstream of the second optical sensor 34 in the observation direction.”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.), said optical system having different refractive indices for the first wavelength range and the at least one second wavelength range (It is noted that the secondary reference Avdokhin teaches optics has different refractive indices for different wavelength ranges, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of the independent claim 1 above. Therefore, in combination, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches said optics having different refractive indices for a first wavelength range and at least one second wavelength range, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of the independent claim 1 above.);
a light line unit (light source 20, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) for radiating the light line (light line 24, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B & Par.0050) of the first wavelength range (“a wavelength of 660 nm”, Schwarz’775 Par.0050) (Schwarz’775 Par.0050 discloses: “A diode laser with 50 mW to 100 mW optical power and a wavelength of 660 nm is preferably used as first light source 20 of the light-fan device 18”) and an illumination unit (light-emitting diode 28, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) for radiating light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) of the at least one second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz’775 Par.0055) (Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses: “The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres.”), and
an evaluation unit (“image processing unit”, Schwarz’775 Par.0050) for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor (sensor 34, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0050 discloses: “According to the invention, the measuring device 100 or 200 furthermore has an image processing unit, which images the image data obtained from the second optical sensor 34 onto a grid model of a topographic image, which was obtained by evaluating the profile of the triangulation light line 24, in order to create a calculated model view of a three-dimensional joint seam 14.”) to analyze features of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B or see Schwarz annotated Fig.3 below) (Schwarz Par.0058 discloses: “According to the invention, the measuring device 100 or 200 furthermore has an image processing unit, which images the image data obtained from the second optical sensor 34 onto a grid model of a topographic image, which was obtained by evaluating the profile of the triangulation light line 24, in order to create a calculated model view of a three-dimensional joint seam 14. To this end, use can be made of known mapping techniques. Thus, this method achieves an optimum simultaneous representation of two-dimensional and three-dimensional information. By rotating or changing the view of the extended 3D grid model, it is possible to see and assess the surface of the joint seam 14 together with the spatial information.”) based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane (it is noted that the evaluation is based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane are taught by Schwarz’805, as explained, cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) for which the light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz Fig.1B) of the second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz Par.0055) (Schwarz Par.0055 discloses: “The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres.”) from said optical system (lens 42, Schwarz Fig.1B) is imaged on said image sensor (sensor 34, Schwarz Fig.1B) (as explained, cited, and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein said analysis device (optical measuring device 200, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) is configured to carry out the method for analyzing the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) according to claim 1 (as cited and explained in the rejection of the independent claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, Schwarz’775 also discloses
wherein said optical system (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) comprises a lens, a lens group, a focusing lens, a focusing lens group, an objective and/or a zoom objective (It is noted that the limitation “a lens, a lens group, a focusing lens, a focusing lens group, an objective and/or a zoom objective” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, lenses 38, 40 and 42 comprise a lens or a lens group).
Regarding claim 12, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, Schwarz’775 also discloses
wherein said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) comprises a matrix image sensor, a two-dimensional optical sensor, a camera sensor, a CCD sensor, a CMOS sensor (Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “the first and second optical sensors 30, 34 are preferably embodied as CCD-matrix camera sensors, more particularly as CMOS camera sensors”.), and/or a photodiode array (It is noted that the limitation “a matrix image sensor, a two-dimensional optical sensor, a camera sensor, a CCD sensor, a CMOS sensor, and/or a photodiode array” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination).
Regarding claim 13, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, Schwarz’775 also discloses
wherein said illumination unit (light-emitting diode 28, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) comprises an LED or an LED array (Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses: “The homogenous illumination of the joining region 10 by means of the at least one illumination device 26 is preferably brought about using a second light source 28 which is embodied as a light-emitting diode.”).
Regarding claim 14, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, Schwarz’775 also discloses
A laser machining head (laser welding head 300, Schwarz’775 Fig.2B) for machining a workpiece (workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) by means of a laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz’775 Fig.2B), comprising the analysis device (optical measuring device 200, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) according to claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the invention set forth in claim 14, Schwarz’775 also discloses wherein said laser machining head (laser welding head 300, Schwarz’775 Fig.2B) is configured to carry out a method for machining the workpiece (workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) using the laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz’775 Fig.2B), in particular laser welding or laser cutting (Schwarz’775 Par.0027 discloses laser welding), comprising:
radiating the laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) onto a point (joining position 48, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) along a machining path (region 12 in direction represented by the arrow in Schwarz’775 Fig.3) on the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.3);
analyzing the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) for the laser machining process (laser machining process as shown in Schwarz’775 Fig.2B), comprising the steps of:
radiating the flat fan-shaped light beam of light (light fan 22, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “The optical measuring device 100 comprises at least one light-section device 18 with a first light source 20, which is suitable for casting a light fan 22 in the direction of the workpiece 16 to be joined in order to create a triangulation light line 24 within the joining region 10 on the workpiece 16 to be joined”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.) of the first wavelength range (“a wavelength of 660 nm”, Schwarz’775 Par.0050) (Schwarz’775 Par.0050 discloses: “A diode laser with 50 mW to 100 mW optical power and a wavelength of 660 nm is preferably used as first light source 20 of the light-fan device 18”) to generate the light line (light line 24, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B & Par.0050) on said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) and illuminating said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) with light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) of the at least a second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz’775 Par.0055) (Schwarz’775 Par.0055 discloses: “The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres.”);
capturing the image of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) by means of the sensor device (sensor device comprises sensors 30, 34 and lenses 38, 40, 42; Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “The optical measuring device 100 according to the invention furthermore comprises a first optical sensor 30 which, in a spatially resolved manner, images the light line 24 projected onto the workpiece 16 and the joint seam 14 via a first observation beam path 32, and a second optical sensor 34 which, in a spatially resolved manner, images the joining region 10 and more particularly the joint seam 14 on the surface of the workpiece 16 via a second observation beam path 36.”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.), which comprises the image sensor (sensors 30 and 34 shown Schwarz’775 Fig.1B are image sensors because Schwarz’775 Par.0038 discloses: “the first and second optical sensors 30, 34 are preferably embodied as CCD-matrix camera sensors, more particularly as CMOS camera sensors”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.) and the optical system (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) for imaging light on said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (Schwarz’775 Par.0039 discloses: “Imaging on the first sensor 30 and the second optical sensor 34 is brought about via an objective lens 38, which is jointly used by the first optical sensor 30 and the second optical sensor 34, and via a first ocular lens 40, arranged upstream of the first optical sensor 30 in the observation direction, and via a second ocular lens 42, arranged upstream of the second optical sensor 34 in the observation direction.”. It is noted that Schwarz’775 Par.0040 discloses the optical measuring device 200 only differs from the optical measuring device 100 as per the first exemplary embodiment shown in Fig.1A by the orientation of the first optical sensor 30.),
wherein said optics has different refractive indices for the first and second wavelength ranges (It is noted that the secondary reference Avdokhin teaches optics has different refractive indices for different wavelength ranges, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of the independent claim 1 above. Therefore, in combination, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches said optics has different refractive indices for the first and second wavelength ranges, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of the independent claim 1 above), and wherein the first plane defined by the plane of the flat fan-shaped light beam (“plane of the light fan 22”, Schwarz’775 Par.0051), said optical system (lenses 38 and 40, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) and said image sensor (sensor 30, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) are arranged in the Scheimpflug arrangement (Schwarz’775 Par.0051 discloses lenses 38 and 40, and image sensor 30 are arranged in Scheimpflug arrangement; specifically, Schwarz’775 Par.0051 discloses: “In the embodiment of the invention shown in FIG. 1B, the sensor surface of the first optical sensor 30 is tuned to the plane of the light fan 22 such that the triangulation light line 24 is always imaged in focus on the sensor area. This is achieved by virtue of the fact that, taking into account the optical components 38, 43 and 40, the plane of the sensor area of the first optical sensor 30 and the plane of the light fan 22 satisfy the so-called Scheimpflug condition. The Scheimpflug condition is satisfied, i.e. the desired object plane (corresponding to the plane of the light fan 22) is imaged with maximum sharpness, if object plane, objective plane and image plane (corresponding to the plane of the sensor area of the first optical sensor 30) intersect at a common line.”); and
evaluating the image to analyze features of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) based on the predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optical system is imaged on said image sensor (It is noted that Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 already teaches evaluating the image to analyze features of said workpiece surface based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and a second plane for which the light of the second wavelength range from said optics is imaged on said image sensor, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of the independent claim 1 above);
wherein the light line (light line 24, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B & Par.0050) is radiated onto said workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Figs.1B & 3) in advance and/or in the wake of the point (joining position 48, Schwarz’775 Fig.3) (It is noted that the limitation “in advance and/or in the wake” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Schwarz’775 discloses the light line is radiated onto the surface of the workpiece 16 in advance because Schwarz’775 Par.0041 discloses: “According to the invention, provision is made not only for an optical measuring device 100 or 200 for monitoring a joining region 10 in a workpiece 16, but also for a joining head which uses the optical measuring device 100 or 200 according to the invention. By way of example, a joining head according to the invention can be embodied as laser welding head 300 (as e.g. shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B), as gas metal arc welding head or as adhesive-bead head. In general, a joining head should be understood to mean any device which can be used for producing a joint seam for joining a workpiece or two different workpieces. Here, the joint seam 14 can be the seam connecting the workpieces; however, it is also feasible for an adhesive-bead head to apply an adhesive bead to a workpiece and for this adhesive bead to be inspected during application in terms of its quality by means of the optical measuring device 100, 200 according to the invention. After the inspection, a second workpiece is applied to the applied adhesive bead and pressed against the workpiece to be bonded in order to create an adhesive bond.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Schwarz’775) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1, previously cited), Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0234805 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Schwarz’805), and further in view of Nomaru et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0133243 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein evaluating the image comprises:
evaluating intensity data of light of the first wavelength range for generating a height profile of the workpiece surface.
Nomaru teaches a laser processing method (Nomaru Fig.1) comprising:
evaluating intensity data of light of the first wavelength range for generating a height profile of the workpiece surface (“surface height of the workpiece W”, Nomaru Par.0039) (Nomaru Par.0039 teaches: “The surface height detecting section 22 functions to determine the surface height of the workpiece W according to the result of detection by the wavelength-specific light intensity sensor 114 with reference to a control map stored in the memory area 23a of the RAM 23. The control map preliminarily sets the relation between the focal lengths of the second focusing lens 102 for the wavelengths of the white light and the surface height of the workpiece W, thereby obtaining surface height information. The edge position information obtained by the edge position detecting section 21 and the surface height information obtained by the surface height detecting section 22 are temporarily stored in the memory area 23b of the RAM 23.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805, by adding the teaching of evaluating intensity data of light of the first wavelength range for generating a height profile of the workpiece surface, as taught by Nomaru, in order to easily handle the white light to be focused on the workpiece and improve the performance of measurement of the surface height of the workpiece by the use of a wavelength component focused on the workpiece, as recognized by Nomaru [Nomaru, Abstract and Par.0008].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Schwarz’775) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1, previously cited), Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0234805 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Schwarz’805), and further in view of Schwarz’775 Embodiment Fig.4 (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1, previously cited) and Thomas et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0150878 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Schwarz’775 Embodiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein said workpiece surface is further illuminated with light of at least a third wavelength range and said optical system has different refractive indices for the first, the second and the third wavelength ranges, and wherein evaluating the image for analyzing features of said workpiece surface is also carried out based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and a third plane for which the light of the third wavelength range is imaged on said image sensor by said optics.
Schwarz’775 Embodiment Fig.4 teaches (Schwarz’775 Fig.4):
wherein said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.4) is further illuminated with a third light (light illuminated from the illumination module 26a, Schwarz’775 Fig.4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805, by making the workpiece surface is further illuminated with third light, as taught by Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.4, in order to achieve an optimum illumination of the joint seam 14, as recognized by Schwarz’775 [Schwarz’775, Par.0056].
Schwarz’775 Embodiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Schwarz’805 and Schwarz’775 Embodiment Fig.4 does not teach:
the third light of at least a third wavelength range and said optical system has different refractive indices for the first, the second and the third wavelength ranges, and wherein evaluating the image for analyzing features of said workpiece surface is also carried out based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and a third plane for which the light of the third wavelength range is imaged on said image sensor by said optics.
Thomas teaches a laser processing method (Thomas Fig.3):
the third light (light illuminator 212, Thomas Fig.3 & Par.0048) of at least a third wavelength range (Thomas Par.0048 teaches: “the light illuminators 18 include two red illuminators 212 and two blue illuminators 214”, and Thomas Claim 51 teaches: “wherein each of the plurality of light illuminators provides the light illumination at a different wavelength than each light illumination from each of the other plurality of light illuminators.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Schwarz’805 and Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.4, by adding the teaching of the third light of at least a third wavelength range, as taught by Thomas, in order to optimize and enhance different type of surface information (geometry, appearance, material, etc.) for more accurate weld seam analysis.
Therefore, in combination, Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Schwarz’805, Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.4 and Thomas teaches:
said optical system (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) has different refractive indices for the first, the second and the third wavelength ranges (It is noted that the secondary reference Avdokhin teaches optics has different refractive indices for different wavelength ranges; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, in combination, Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Schwarz’805, Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.4 and Thomas teaches different refractive indices for the first, the second and the third wavelength ranges), and wherein evaluating the image for analyzing features of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) is also carried out based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) between the first plane and a third plane (third plane is the plane for which the light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28 of the third wavelength range is imaged sharply on the sensor plane of the image sensor 34 by the optics 42; it is noted that the third wavelength range is taught by Thomas, as cited and incorporated above) for which the light of the third wavelength range (it is noted that the third wavelength range is taught by Thomas, as cited and incorporated above) is imaged on said image sensor (sensor 34, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) by said optics (lens 42, Schwarz’775 Fig.1B) (It is noted that Schwarz’775 discloses evaluating the image for analyzing features of said workpiece surface, and the prior art Schwarz’805 teaches the evaluation/analysis is performed based on the offset between two planes of two images, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, in combination, Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Schwarz’805, Schwarz’775 Emdobiment Fig.4 and Thomas teaches evaluating the image for analyzing features of said workpiece surface is also carried out based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and a third plane for which the light of the third wavelength range is imaged on said image sensor by said optical system).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Schwarz’775) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1, previously cited), Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0234805 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Schwarz’805), and further in view of Kilibarda et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,410,895 B2, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
the above steps recited in claim 1 are repeated (Schwarz’775 Par.0051 discloses: “periodically capturing and buffering the height profile data during the scan by means of the triangulation light line 24”).
Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805 does not teach:
wherein said workpiece surface is subsequently moved relative to said sensor device.
Kilibarda teaches a method for analyzing workpiece surface (Kilibarda Fig.3, Abstract & Col.4 lines 47-49)
wherein said workpiece surface (surface 52 of the workpiece W, Kilibarda Fig.3) is subsequently moved relative to said sensor device (sensor 102, Kilibarda Fig.3) (Kilibarda teaches the surface 52 of the workpiece W is subsequently moved relative to the sensor 102 because Kilibarda Claim 8 teaches: “moving one of the workpiece or the programmable mechanical joint forming device having the sensor to a predetermined nominal positional X,Y location relative to one another where a mechanical joint is to be formed.”, and Kilibarda Claim 10 teaches: “moving the one of the workpiece or the programmable mechanical joint forming device to the a next predetermined mechanical joint forming nominal X,Y location following a pass inspection condition.”) and the above step is repeated (Kilibarda Col.6 lines 34-39 teaches repeating operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwarz’775 in view of Avdokhin and Schwarz’805, by making the workpiece surface is subsequently moved relative to the sensor device and the step is repeated, as taught by Kilibarda, in order to ensure higher precision, stability, and protection for the sensitive optical equipment, and provide the highest accuracy in detecting weld defects, as it avoids inaccuracies and environmental damage that come with moving the sensor device itself. Specifically, moving the sensor device can introduce vibrations, fumes, and electromagnetic interference that reduce sensor readout quality. Thus, the modification makes the sensor device to be fixed or stably mounted in order to ensure high-speed, consistent measurements; thus, allow for more accurate measurement of line or spatial curve compared to a sensor device that might struggle to follow complex paths.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Schönleber et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0202045 A1) discloses a method for measuring the penetration depth of a laser beam into a workpiece. A focusing optical unit arranged in a machining head focuses the laser beam in a focal spot. The focal spot produces a vapor capillary in the workpiece. An optical coherence tomograph produces a first and a second measurement beam.
Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0292916 A1) discloses a defects evaluation system and method. Based on the principle of the microscopic scattering dark-field imaging, Yang implements a sub-aperture scanning for the surface of spherical optical components and then obtains surface defects information with image processing.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights