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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2023, 03/30/2023, 05/12/2023, 10/17/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par.0053 of the specification recites “an line of intersection 44'” in the second line from the bottom of Par.0053 [see page 16 of the specification]. This appears to be grammatical error and should be changed to “a line of intersection 44'”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plane of the fan-shaped light beam” in lines 10-11. This should be changed to “the plane of the flat fan-shaped light beam” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 3).
Claims 2-15 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a laser beam” in line 3. This should be changed to “the laser beam” or “said laser beam” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 9 (line 1).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a workpiece surface” in line 4. Claim 9 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 9 (line 4) and “a workpiece surface” recited in claim 1 (line 1) are the same workpiece surface. Therefore, the limitation “a workpiece surface” recited in claim 9 (line 4) 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).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a sensor device” in line 3. Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a sensor device” in line 6. It is understood that “a sensor device” recited in claim 10 (line 3) and “a sensor device” recited in claim 1 (line 6) are the same sensor device. Therefore, the limitation “a sensor device” recited in claim 10 (line 3) should be changed to “the sensor device” or “said sensor device” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 6).
Similarly,
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a workpiece surface” in line 1. This should be changed to “the workpiece surface” or “said workpiece surface”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an image sensor” in line 3. This should be changed to “the image sensor” or “said image sensor”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an image” in line 3. This should be changed to “the image” or “said image”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a first wavelength range” in lines 5 and 6. This should be changed to “the first wavelength range” or “said wavelength range”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “at least one second wavelength range” in lines 5 and 7. This should be changed to “the at least one second wavelength range” or “said at least one second wavelength range”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a light line” in line 6. This should be changed to “the light line” or “said light line”.
Claims 11-15 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an analysis device” in line 2. Claim 14 depends on claim 10. Claim 10 recites the limitation “An analysis device” in line 1. It is understood that “an analysis device” recited in claim 14 (line 2) and “An analysis device” recited in claim 10 (line 1) are the same analysis device. Therefore, the limitation “an analysis device” recited in claim 14 (line 2) should be changed to “the analysis device” or “said analysis device” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 10 (line 1).
Claim 15 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a flat fan-shaped light beam of light” in line 7. Claim 15 depends on claim 14; claim 14 depends on claim 10; and claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a flat fan-shaped light beam of light” in line 3. It is understood that “a flat fan-shaped light beam of light” recited in claim 15 (line 7) and “a flat fan-shaped light beam of light” recited in claim 1 (line 3) are the same flat fan-shaped light beam of light. Therefore, the limitation “a flat fan-shaped light beam of light” recited in claim 15 (line 7) should be changed to “the flat fan-shaped light beam of light” or “said flat fan-shaped light beam of light” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 3).
Similarly,
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a workpiece” in line 3. This should be changed to “the workpiece” or “said workpiece”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a laser beam” in lines 3 and 5. This should be changed to “the laser beam” or “said laser beam”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a workpiece surface” in line 5. This should be changed to “the workpiece surface” or “said workpiece surface”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a laser machining process” in line 6. This should be changed to “the laser machining process” or “said laser machining process”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a first wavelength range” in line 7. This should be changed to “the first wavelength range” or “said first wavelength range”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a light line” in lines 7-8. This should be changed to “the light line” or “said light line”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a second wavelength range” in line 9. This should be changed to “the second wavelength range” or “said second wavelength range”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an image” in line 10. This should be changed to “the image” or “said image”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a sensor device” in line 10. This should be changed to “the sensor device” or “said sensor device”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an image sensor” in line 11. This should be changed to “the image sensor” or “said image sensor”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an optical system” in line 11. This should be changed to “the optical system” or “said optical system”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a first plane” in line 13. This should be changed to “the first plane” or “said first plane”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a Scheimpflug arrangement” in line 14. This should be changed to “the Scheimpflug arrangement” or “said Scheimpflug arrangement”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a predetermined offset” in lines 15-16. This should be changed to “the predetermined offset” or “said predetermined offset”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a second plane” in line 16. This should be changed to “the second plane” or “said second plane”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the plane of the fan-shaped light beam” in line 13. This should be changed to “the plane of the flat fan-shaped light beam” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 15 (line 7).
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 a light line of a first 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 a light line of a 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 at least one second wavelength range” in claim 10 (line 7). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “for radiating light of 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” in claim 10 (line 8). 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” (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” in line 8. Claim limitation “evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor” 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 dependent 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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation “the plane of the fan-shaped light beam” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because plane of the fan-shaped light beam was not recited previously.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said optics” in line 9. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because there is no “optics” recited previously in the claim; thus, it is unclear what “said optics” herein refers to. It is noted that claim 1 recites the limitation “an optical system” in line 7. However, it is unclear if the limitation “said optics” recited in claim 1 (line 9) refers to the limitation “an optical system” recited previously in claim 1 (line 7), or the limitation “said optics” recited in claim 1 (line 9) refers to different optical component(s). For examination purposes, the limitation “said optics” recited in claim 1 (line 9) will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “an optical system” recited previously in claim 1 (line 7).
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the first wavelength range comprises blue light, preferably light with a wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm, particularly preferably 450 nm, and/or wherein the second wavelength range comprises red light, preferably light with a wavelength of 620 nm to 720 nm, particularly preferably 660 nm” in lines 2-5. The term “preferably” and the phrase “particularly preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term and the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the above limitation recited in claim 4 will be interpreted as “wherein the first wavelength range comprises blue light,
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the wake of the point” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “wake of the point” was not recited previously.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor” in line 8. Claim limitation “evaluation unit for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor” 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 13 recites the limitation “wherein said light line unit comprises an LED or an LED array” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 13 depends on claim 10, and claim 10 recites “a light line unit for radiating a light line of a first wavelength range” in line 6; thus, it is unclear how an LED or an LED array be able to generate a light line of a first wavelength range. Specifically, the Instant Application describes at least two illumination systems, which are a laser configured to generate a light line of a first wavelength range [Pars.0051 & 0066], and a colored LED or an LED that emits in a second wavelength [Par.0035]. To be more specific, according to the specification of the Instant Application, a light line is defined as a continuous straight light line that is generated by a fan-shaped light beam, wherein the fan-shaped light beam is radiated from a laser, not a LED or an LED array. Specifically, Par.0036 of the specification describes: “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.”. Additionally, Pars.0051 & 0066 of the specification also describes a line laser is configured to generate a light line of a first wavelength range. The specification of the Instant Application describes a colored LED or an LED that emits in the second wavelength range in Par.0035. The specification of the Instant Application does not describe an LED or an LED array generates a light line of a first wavelength range. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 13 is meant to require “wherein said light line unit comprises an LED or an LED array”, “wherein said light line unit comprises a laser”, or “wherein said illumination unit comprises an LED or an LED array”. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted as “wherein said light line unit comprises an LED or an LED array”, as currently recited in claim 13 (line 2).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the wake of the point” in lines 19-20. 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
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, 9-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1), and further in view of Hutchin (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0103410 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schwarz discloses a method for analyzing a workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B or see Schwarz annotated Fig.3 below) for a laser machining process (Schwarz 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 Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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 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 Par.0050) (Schwarz 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 Fig.1B & Par.0050) on said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B or see Schwarz annotated Fig.3 below) and illuminating said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B or see Schwarz annotated Fig.3 below) with light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz Fig.1B) of at least a second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz Par.0055) (Schwarz 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 Fig.1B or see Schwarz annotated Fig.3 below) by means of a sensor device (sensor device comprises optical sensors 30, 34 and lenses 38, 40, 42; Schwarz Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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 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 Fig.1B are image sensors because Schwarz 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 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 Fig.1B) for imaging light on said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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 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 the plane of the fan-shaped light beam (“plane of the light fan 22”, Schwarz Par.0051), said optics (lenses 38 and 40, Schwarz Fig.1B) and said image sensor (sensor 30, Schwarz Fig.1B) are arranged in a Scheimpflug arrangement (Schwarz Par.0051 discloses lenses 38 and 40, and image sensor 30 are arranged in Scheimpflug arrangement; specifically, Schwarz 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 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.”), 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 Fig.1B) 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 optics (lens 42, Schwarz Fig.1B) is imaged on said image sensor (sensor 34, Schwarz Fig.1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schwarz does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said optics 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
Avdokhin teaches a laser processing method (Avdokhin Par.0001):
wherein said optics (chromatic lens system 16, Avdokhin Figs.8A-8B & 9-10) 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, by adding the teaching of optics has different refractive indices for the first and second wavelength ranges, as taught by Avdokhin, in order to allow for chromatic aberration correction, thus, significantly improve focusing precision, enhance image resolution in imaging systems, and reduce, sharper focal spots for machining.
Schwarz 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
Hutchin teaches a laser control method (Hutchin Abstract):
the evaluating is based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface between the first plane and the second plane (Hutchin Par.0039 teaches: “Since the two return beams 155, 157 have different wavelengths, the dispersive element 311 creates a predetermined offset between two images 315, 317 on the tracking sensor 301.”, and Hutchin Par.0011 discloses: “The optics controller is operationally coupled to the sensor and is adapted to determine a relative spatial relationship between the first and second laser beam returns based upon relative positions of the respective images generated on the sensor. As part of determining the relative spatial relationship, the optics controller may generate a virtual image of the second image in the first area of the sensor, such that relative positions of the virtual image and the first image, both within the first area of the sensor, indicates the relative spatial relationship.”; thus, the evaluation/analysis is performed based on the offset between two planes of two images)
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 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, as taught by Hutchin, in order to improve the accuracy and robustness of measuring the workpiece surface and weld seam by providing a calibrated 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.
Regarding claim 2, Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the first plane is arranged perpendicularly to said workpiece surface and/or wherein an optical axis of said optics (optical axis of lens 38, Schwarz 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 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 discloses the optical axis of lens 38 forms an acute angle with the plane of the light fan 22 because Schwarz 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz also discloses:
wherein the features of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B) include a weld seam (joint seam 14, Schwarz 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 discloses features of the surface of workpiece 16 includes weld seam because Schwarz 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 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 optics (optical axis of lens 38, Schwarz Fig.1B & Par.0051) lie in a plane which extends perpendicularly to said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz 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 discloses the optical axis of lens 38 lies in a plane which extends perpendicularly to the surface of the workpiece 16 because Schwarz 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 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 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz also discloses:
wherein the first wavelength range comprises blue light, preferably light with a wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm, particularly preferably 450 nm, and/or wherein the second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz Par.0055) comprises red light, preferably light with a wavelength of 620 nm to 720 nm, particularly preferably 660 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, preferably light with a wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm, particularly preferably 450 nm, and/or wherein the second wavelength range comprises red light, preferably light with a wavelength of 620 nm to 720 nm, particularly preferably 660 nm, 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. Furthermore, see the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section above for the 112(b) rejection of the claimed limitation “wherein the first wavelength range comprises blue light, preferably light with a wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm, particularly preferably 450 nm, and/or wherein the second wavelength range comprises red light, preferably light with a wavelength of 620 nm to 720 nm, particularly preferably 660 nm”. In this case, Schwarz discloses the second wavelength of 620 nanometres as indicated by Schwarz 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 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz also discloses
wherein a partial area of said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz 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 Fig.1B) with said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz 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 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 discloses evaluating intensity data of light) 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.”) 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 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 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 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz also discloses a method for machining a workpiece (workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.3) using a laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz Fig.3), in particular laser welding or laser cutting (Schwarz Par.0027 discloses laser welding), comprising:
radiating a laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz Fig.3) onto a point (joining position 48, Schwarz Fig.3) along a machining path (region 12 in direction represented by the arrow in Schwarz Fig.3) on a workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.3 or see Schwarz 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 Fig.1B & Par.0050) is radiated onto said workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.3) in advance and/or in the wake of the point (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 discloses the light line is radiated onto the top surface of the workpiece 16 in advance because Schwarz 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Schwarz also discloses an analysis device (optical measuring device 200, Schwarz Fig.1B) for analyzing a workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.3) (Schwarz 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:
a sensor device (sensor device comprises sensors 30, 34 and lenses 38, 40, 42; Schwarz Fig.1B) with an image sensor (sensors 30 and 34 shown Schwarz Fig.1B are image sensors because Schwarz 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 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 an image (Schwarz 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 optics (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz Fig.1B) for imaging light on said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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 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 optics having different refractive indices for a first wavelength range and 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin 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 Fig.1B) for radiating a light line (light line 24, Schwarz Fig.1B & Par.0050) of a first wavelength range (“a wavelength of 660 nm”, Schwarz Par.0050) (Schwarz 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 Fig.1B) for radiating light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz Fig.1B) of at least one second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz Par.0055) (Schwarz Par.0055 discloses: “The wavelength of the light-emitting diode 28 is preferably 620 nanometres.”), and
an evaluation unit (“image processing unit”, Schwarz Par.0050) for evaluating the image captured by said image sensor (sensor 34, Schwarz Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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.”), wherein said analysis device (optical measuring device 200, Schwarz Fig.1B) is configured to carry out the method for analyzing the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.3) according to claim 1 (as cited and explained in the rejection of the independent claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, Schwarz also discloses
wherein said optics (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, Schwarz also discloses
wherein said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz Fig.1B) comprises a matrix image sensor, a two-dimensional optical sensor, a camera sensor, a CCD sensor, a CMOS sensor (Schwarz 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 14, Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, Schwarz also discloses
A laser machining head (laser welding head 300, Schwarz Fig.2B) for machining a workpiece (workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B) by means of a laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz Fig.2B), comprising an analysis device (optical measuring device 200, Schwarz Fig.1B) according to claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the invention set forth in claim 14, Schwarz also discloses wherein said laser machining head (laser welding head 300, Schwarz Fig.2B) is configured to carry out a method for machining a workpiece (workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B) using a laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz Fig.2B), in particular laser welding or laser cutting (Schwarz Par.0027 discloses laser welding), comprising:
radiating a laser beam (laser beam 50, Schwarz Fig.3) onto a point (joining position 48, Schwarz Fig.3) along a machining path (region 12 in direction represented by the arrow in Schwarz Fig.3) on a workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.3);
analyzing the workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.3) for a laser machining process (laser machining process as shown in Schwarz Fig.2B), comprising the steps of:
radiating a flat fan-shaped light beam of light (light fan 22, Schwarz Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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 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 Par.0050) (Schwarz 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 Fig.1B & Par.0050) on said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B) and illuminating said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.1B) with light (light illuminated from the light-emitting diode 28; see the light-emitting diode 28 in Schwarz Fig.1B) of at least a second wavelength range (“620 nanometres”, Schwarz Par.0055) (Schwarz 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 Fig.1B) by means of a sensor device (sensor device comprises sensors 30, 34 and lenses 38, 40, 42; Schwarz Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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 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 Fig.1B are image sensors because Schwarz 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 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 Fig.1B) for imaging light on said image sensor (sensors 30 and 34, Schwarz Fig.1B) (Schwarz 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 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin 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 a first plane defined by the plane of the fan-shaped light beam (“plane of the light fan 22”, Schwarz Par.0051), said optics (lenses 38 and 40, Schwarz Fig.1B) and said image sensor (sensor 30, Schwarz Fig.1B) are arranged in a Scheimpflug arrangement (Schwarz Par.0051 discloses lenses 38 and 40, and image sensor 30 are arranged in Scheimpflug arrangement; specifically, Schwarz 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 Fig.1B) 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 (It is noted that Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin 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 Fig.1B & Par.0050) is radiated onto said workpiece surface (top surface of workpiece 16, Schwarz Figs.1B & 3) in advance and/or in the wake of the point (joining position 48, Schwarz 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 discloses the light line is radiated onto the surface of the workpiece 16 in advance because Schwarz 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) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1), Hutchin (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0103410 A1), and further in view of Nomaru et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0133243 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin, 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 Embodiment Fig.1B (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1), Hutchin (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0103410 A1), and further in view of Schwarz Embodiment Fig.4 (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1) and Thomas et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0150878 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Schwarz Embodiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin 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 optics 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 Embodiment Fig.4 teaches (Schwarz Fig.4):
wherein said workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz Fig.4) is further illuminated with a third light (light illuminated from the illumination module 26a, Schwarz 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 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin, by making the workpiece surface is further illuminated with third light, as taught by Schwarz Emdobiment Fig.4, in order to achieve an optimum illumination of the joint seam 14, as recognized by Schwarz [Schwarz, Par.0056].
Schwarz Embodiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Hutchin and Schwarz Embodiment Fig.4 does not teach:
the third light of at least a third wavelength range and said optics 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 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Hutchin and Schwarz 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 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Hutchin, Schwarz Emdobiment Fig.4 and Thomas teaches:
said optics (lenses 38, 40 and 42, Schwarz 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 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Hutchin, Schwarz 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 Fig.1B) is also carried out based on a predetermined offset on the workpiece surface (top surface of the workpiece 16, Schwarz 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 Fig.1B) by said optics (lens 42, Schwarz Fig.1B) (It is noted that Schwarz discloses evaluating the image for analyzing features of said workpiece surface, and the prior art Hutchin 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 Emdobiment Fig.1B in view of Avdokhin, Hutchin, Schwarz 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 optics).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1), Hutchin (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0103410 A1), and further in view of Kilibarda et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,410,895 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
the above steps recited in claim 1 are repeated (Schwarz Par.0051 discloses: “periodically capturing and buffering the height profile data during the scan by means of the triangulation light line 24”).
Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin 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 in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin, 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318775 A1) in view of Avdokhin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329357 A1), Hutchin (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0103410 A1), and further in view of Pfitzner (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0073587 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Schwarz in view of Avdokhin and Hutchin teaches the invention set forth in claim 10, but does not disclose:
wherein said light line unit comprises an LED or an LED array.
Pfitzner teaches laser processing:
wherein said light line unit (“measuring light source”, Pfitzner Par.0030) comprises an LED or an LED array (It is noted that the limitation “an LED or an LED array” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Pfitzner teaches the measuring light source comprises LEDs because Pfitzner Par.0030 teaches: “As a measuring light source for projection of two-dimensional incident light or of one or more lines of light onto the workpiece 12, LEDs or laser diodes, for example, can be used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Schwarz light line unit (see the Schwarz light source 20 comprises a diode laser in Schwarz Fig.1B & Par.0050) with the Pfitzner light line unit (the Pfitzner LEDs in Pfitzner Par.0030), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of projecting two-dimensional incident light or one or more lines of light onto the surface of the workpiece, as recognized by Pfitzner [Pfitzner, Par.0030]. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Moser et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0326669 A1) discloses a device for measuring the depth of a weld seam in real time during the welding or joining of a workpiece by means of radiation.
Bernges et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0043078 A1) discloses an apparatus for observing a laser machining process, and an apparatus for controlling the laser machining process on the basis of observed results.
Sangu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0101560 A1) discloses a laser processing apparatus. Sangu also discloses when the laser beam is transmitted through a transmissive lens, a chromatic aberration occurs due to a difference in refractive indexes between the wavelengths, and the position of the focal point changes according to the wavelength.
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 04/10/2026
Prosecution Insights