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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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:
“actuation mechanism” in claim 17 invoking 112(f), interpreted to have the corresponding structure (specification para 0020): one or more actuators that are configured to move the welding tool 12 in a three-dimensional (3D) space.
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 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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/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.
The term “about” in claims 9-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the angle in claim 9 can be 80 degrees and if the angle in claim 10 can be 30 degrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
The claim is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the limitation “monitoring the welded joint during the adaptive welding using one or more sensors, receiving one or more welding parameters from the one or more sensors”, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for but the recitation of generic electronic components. That is, other than reciting “the one or more sensors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “sensors” language, “monitoring the welded joint during the adaptive welding” in the context of this claim encompasses a person visually looking at two workpieces being welded together. Then, “receiving one or more welding parameters” encompasses a person noticing if the weld appears straight along the weld path or slanted and straying away from the weld path.
Furthermore, the claim recites the limitation “using the one or more welding parameters with a welding envelope, wherein the welding envelope defines a boundary for an acceptable weld quality based on the one or more welding parameters; and determining a weld quality of the welded joint using the welding envelope” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, the claim limitations encompass a person performs a visual inspection of the current weld joint against an image of a quality weld joint, i.e. welding envelope, to compare if the weld joint is acceptable. For example, an image of a quality weld joint can show that the weld path is straight and without visible holes or defects. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites two additional elements being “adaptively welding a first workpiece” and “a second workpiece to form a welded joint”, however they are recited at a high-level of generality where one workpiece is assembled with another workpiece without further details of the function of the final assembly. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites two more elements being “adaptively welding a first workpiece” and “a second workpiece to form a welded joint”, however the involvement of these elements is extra-solution activity or field-of-use. Use of the adaptive welding contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed step of monitoring the welded joint, receiving welding parameters, using the welding parameters and determining a weld quality. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11
The claim is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the same or similar limitations as claim 1, with additional elements being “a controller comprising a processor and a memory”, however they are recited at a high-level of generality that is to perform the abstract ideas using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites two more elements being “a controller comprising a processor and a memory”, however the involvement of these elements are generic computer components and contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed step of monitoring the welded joint, receiving welding parameters, using the welding parameters and determining a weld quality. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19
The claim is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the same or similar limitations as claim 1, with an additional element being “a welding system”. However, this is recited at a high-level of generality where the welding system is used to formed a welded joint assembly having two workpieces, without further details of the function of the final assembly. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites two more elements being “a welding system”, however the involvement of these elements is extra-solution activity or field-of-use. Use of the adaptive welding contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed step of receiving welding parameters, correlating the welding parameters, and determining a welding envelope. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwarz (US 7577285 B2).
Regarding claim 1
Schwarz discloses a method of monitoring a welding process (welding, Fig 1, Col 3 lines 50-52), the method comprising:
adaptively welding a first workpiece (1, Fig 1) to a second workpiece (2 Fig 1) to form a welded joint (weld seam 4);
monitoring the welded joint (seam inspection unit 9 to monitor region 10 of the weld seam 4, Col 4 lines 20-23) during the adaptive welding using one or more sensors (light line sensor in the unit 9, Col 4 line 37);
receiving one or more welding parameters (images recorded by the sensor are passed to an image evaluation unit 11, Figs 3-5, Col 5 lines 53-55, the images show welding parameters: transverse profile 23, geometrical data of the seam such as e.g., convexity, concavity and edge misalignment, Col 5 lines 65-67, local defects such as porosity, small holes and incomplete penetration, Col 6 lines 21-23) from the one or more sensors (light line sensor in unit 9 for capturing the image);
using the one or more welding parameters with a welding envelope (by suitable image processing, the local defects are detected by comparing the processed images in the regions 21 or 22 in Fig 4 with known patterns of good-quality weld seams, making it possible to inspect the quality of the weld seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 22-31, the known patterns of good-quality weld seams is interpreted to be the welding envelope), wherein the welding envelope defines a boundary for an acceptable weld quality based on the one or more welding parameters (known patterns of good-quality weld defines acceptable boundary for weld seam, based on weld parameters such as porosity, small holes or incomplete penetration, Col 6 lines 22-31); and
determining a weld quality of the welded joint using the welding envelope (it now becomes possible to inspect the quality of the seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 2
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 1.
Schwarz further discloses:
determining that the welded joint has an acceptable weld quality using the weld quality determined from the welding envelope (the images are used for comparing the structures thus detected as in the regions 21 or 22 with known patterns of good-quality weld seams, Col 6 lines 22-26, where the known patterns of good-quality weld seams is construed to be the welding envelope); and
certifying the welded joint based on determining that the welded joint has the acceptable weld quality (it now becomes possible to inspect the quality of the seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 4
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 1.
Schwarz further discloses wherein adaptively welding the first workpiece (1 Fig 1) to the second workpiece (2 Fig 1) comprises:
monitoring the one or more welding parameters (weld path being the direction of the weld seam, col 6 line 26-27) with a controller (control unit Fig 1);
adjusting at least one of the welding parameters using the controller (laser source 5 is controlled and/or guided by the unit 11 via the line 13 so that welding by the laser beam takes place at the exact location of the joint line 3, Col 6 lines 57-62, this indicates that the control unit adjusts the position of the laser beam to stay on the correct weld path 3 to produce the weld seam 4); and
forming the welded joint (weld seam 4) based on the adjusted at least one of the welding parameters (weld path along weld joint 3).
Regarding claim 5
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 4.
Schwarz further discloses:
determining an operating envelope (laser source 5 is controlled and/or guided by the unit 11 via the line 13 so that welding by the laser beam takes place at the exact location of the joint line 3, Col 6 lines 57-62, the operating envelope is the location of the joint 3),
wherein the operating envelope uses the one or more welding parameters (welding parameter being the location of the laser beam source to generate a weld seam 4) and is configured to maintain the one or more parameters entirely within the welding envelope (weld seam 4 is to be exactly along the weld joint 3, where position of the weld seam 4 is inspected via images captured by seam inspection unit 9, and the control unit to guide the laser beam along the weld joint 3 such that the weld seam 4 is also along the weld joint 3); and
maintaining the one or more parameters within the operating envelope using the controller (the control unit to guide the laser beam along the weld joint 3 such that the weld seam 4 is also along the weld joint 3).
Regarding claim 6
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 4.
Schwarz further discloses wherein monitoring the welded joint during the adaptive welding occurs in real time during the formation of the welded joint (seam inspection unit 9 monitors the welded joint 4 in real time, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 1.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the one or more welding parameters comprise at least one of:
a position of an electrode forming the welded joint (position of the laser beam source to form weld seam 4, Fig 1),
a traveled path of the electrode (traveled path being weld seam 4 of the electrode of the laser beam source),
a size of a weld bead (grey-level image in Fig 3 showing the size of weld bead 4),
a shape of the weld bead (grey-level image in Fig 3 showing the shape of weld bead 4),
an indication of surface or subsurface defects (local defects such as porosity and small holes and incomplete penetration can be detected, Col 6 lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 8
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 1.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise an optical sensor (light line sensor in the unit 9 is preferably a CMOS sensor, which is a complimentary metal oxide semiconductor camera, i.e. optical sensor, Col 2 lines 3-5) configured to monitor the welded joint (weld seam 4 in Figs 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 11
Schwarz discloses a system comprising:
a controller (image evaluation unit/control unit 11, Fig 1) comprising a processor and a memory (control unit 11 processes information from the seam inspection unit 9 and seam detection unit 7, thus interpreted to have a processor and memory for storing instructions), wherein the memory stores a monitoring program that when executed on the processor, configures the processor to:
receive one or more welding parameters (images recorded by the sensor are passed to an image evaluation unit 11, Figs 3-5, Col 5 lines 53-55, the images show welding parameters: transverse profile 23, geometrical data of the seam such as e.g., convexity, concavity and edge misalignment, Col 5 lines 65-67, local defects such as porosity, small holes and incomplete penetration, Col 6 lines 21-23) from one or more sensors (light line sensor in the unit 9, Col 4 line 37) associated with a welding system (Fig 1) during the formation of a welded joint (weld seam 4);
use the one or more welding parameters with a welding envelope (by suitable image processing, the local defects are detected by comparing the processed images in the regions 21 or 22 in Fig 4 with known patterns of good-quality weld seams, making it possible to inspect the quality of the weld seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 22-31, the known patterns of good-quality weld seams is interpreted to be the welding envelope), wherein the welding envelope defines a boundary for an acceptable weld quality based on the one or more welding parameters (known patterns of good-quality weld defines acceptable boundary for weld seam, based on weld parameters such as porosity, small holes or incomplete penetration, Col 6 lines 22-31); and
determining a weld quality of the welded joint using the welding envelope (it now becomes possible to inspect the quality of the seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 12
Schwarz discloses the system of claim 11.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the processor (control unit 11, Fig 1) is further configured to:
determine that the welded joint has an acceptable weld quality using the weld quality determined from the welding envelope (the images are used for comparing the structures thus detected as in the regions 21 or 22 with known patterns of good-quality weld seams, Col 6 lines 22-26, where the known patterns of good-quality weld seams is construed to be the welding envelope); and
certify the welded joint based on determining that the welded joint has the acceptable weld quality (it now becomes possible to inspect the quality of the seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 14
Schwarz discloses the system of claim 11.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the processor (control unit 11) is further configured to:
monitor the one or more welding parameters (weld path being the direction of the weld seam, col 6 line 26-27) with a controller (control unit Fig 1);
adjust at least one of the welding parameters using the controller (laser source 5 is controlled and/or guided by the unit 11 via the line 13 so that welding by the laser beam takes place at the exact location of the joint line 3, Col 6 lines 57-62, this indicates that the control unit adjusts the position of the laser beam to stay on the correct weld path 3 to produce the weld seam 4), wherein the welded joint is formed (weld seam 4) based on the adjusted at least one of the welding parameters (weld path along weld joint 3).
Regarding claim 15
Schwarz discloses the system of claim 14.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the processor (control unit 11, Fig 1) is configured to monitor the welded joint during the adaptive welding occurs in real time during the formation of the welded joint (seam inspection unit 9 monitors the welded joint 4 in real time, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 16
Schwarz discloses the system of claim 11.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the one or more welding parameters comprise at least one of:
a position of an electrode forming the welded joint (position of the laser beam source to form weld seam 4, Fig 1),
a traveled path of the electrode (traveled path being weld seam 4 of the electrode of the laser beam source),
a size of a weld bead (grey-level image in Fig 3 showing the size of weld bead 4),
a shape of the weld bead (grey-level image in Fig 3 showing the shape of weld bead 4),
an indication of surface or subsurface defects (local defects such as porosity and small holes and incomplete penetration can be detected, Col 6 lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 18
Schwarz discloses the system of claim 11.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise an optical sensor (light line sensor in the unit 9 is preferably a CMOS sensor, which is a complimentary metal oxide semiconductor camera, i.e. optical sensor, Col 2 lines 3-5) configured to monitor the welded joint (weld seam 4 in Figs 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 19
Schwarz discloses a method of determining a welding envelope for operation of a welding system (Fig 1), the method comprising:
receiving one or more welding parameters (images recorded by the sensor are passed to an image evaluation unit 11, Figs 3-5, Col 5 lines 53-55, the images show welding parameters: transverse profile 23, geometrical data of the seam such as e.g., convexity, concavity and edge misalignment, Col 5 lines 65-67, local defects such as porosity, small holes and incomplete penetration, Col 6 lines 21-23) during the formation of a welded joint (weld seam 4, Fig 1) between a first workpiece (1) and a second workpiece (2);
receiving an indication of a quality of the welded joint (images of the weld are recorded, Fig 3, these images indicate a quality of the welded joint);
correlating the one or more welding parameters with the indication of the quality of the welded joint to form a correlated data set (process the images to correlate or check for welding parameters such as local defects such as porosity, small holes and incomplete penetration, from the recorded images of the welded joint, Fig 3-4, Col 6 lines 22-31); and
determining a welding envelope based on the correlated data set, wherein the welding envelope defines a boundary for an acceptable weld quality based on the one or more welding parameters (by suitable image processing, the correlated data set being the local defects detected from the processed images in the regions 21 or 22 of the welded joint in Fig 4 with known patterns of good-quality weld seams, making it possible to inspect the quality of the weld seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 22-31, the known patterns of good-quality weld seams is interpreted to be the welding envelope).
Regarding claim 20
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 19.
Schwarz further discloses:
forming the welded joint (weld seam 4, Fig 1); and
measuring the one or more welding parameters (unit 11 to check for the presence of contour lines, their orientation or angular deviation from the longitudinal direction of the seam, Col 6 lines 21-30, this indicates that while forming the welded joint 4, the path of welded join 4 is checked to make sure that it is on track) while forming the welded joint.
Regarding claim 21
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 20.
Schwarz further discloses:
wherein forming the welded joint (weld seam 4 formed along weld joint path 3, Fig 1) comprises using an adaptive welding process to form the welded joint (image obtained by the unit 7 is transmitted by a line 12 to the evaluation unit and control unit 11 and the position of the laser beam is controlled accordingly, for precise tracking of the joint 3, Col 4 lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 22
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 19.
Schwarz further discloses wherein the one or more welding parameters comprise at least one of:
a position of an electrode forming the welded joint (position of the laser beam source to form weld seam 4, Fig 1),
a traveled path of the electrode (traveled path being weld seam 4 of the electrode of the laser beam source),
a size of a weld bead (grey-level image in Fig 3 showing the size of weld bead 4),
a shape of the weld bead (grey-level image in Fig 3 showing the shape of weld bead 4),
an indication of surface or subsurface defects (local defects such as porosity and small holes and incomplete penetration can be detected, Col 6 lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 23
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 19.
Schwarz further discloses:
performing one or more examination processes on the welded joint (comparing the structures thus detected as in the regions 21 or 22 with known patterns of good-quality weld seams, Col 6 lines 22-26); and
determining the indication of the quality of the welded joint based on the one or more examination processes (it now becomes possible to inspect the quality of the seam on the basis of a grey-level image, Col 6 lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 24
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 19.
Schwarz further discloses:
wherein determining the welding envelope comprises: using the correlated data set as a training set in a machine learning model (the step of comparing structures thus detected as in the regions 21 or 22 with known patterns of good-quality weld seams, Col 6 lines 22-26, is interpreted to be the machine learning model because the evaluation unit and control unit 11 performs this step as part of its normal operation); and
training the machine learning model using the correlated data set to create a trained model, wherein the welding envelope is the trained model (the welding envelope is the known good-quality welds, which is used to trained the evaluation unit and control unit 11 to use the parameters obtained from the grey-level images to determine the quality of the weld).
Regarding claim 25
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 19.
Schwarz further discloses wherein determining the welded envelop comprises:
performing a statistic analysis on the correlated data set (“statistic analysis” is interpreted to be reviewing a plurality of acceptable weld images since the claim does not further clarify how to perform this analysis,
since Schwarz teaches that the gray-level images are compared against a plurality of known patterns, i.e. images, of good-quality weld seams, this is interpreted as performing statistically analysis on the correlated data set, where the correlated data set being a set of gray-level images recorded by the sensor being passed to an image evaluation unit 11, Figs 3-5, Col 5 lines 53-55), and
developing the welding envelope based on the statistical analysis of the correlated data set (the known patterns of good-quality weld seams are interpreted to be the welding envelope).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz in view of Anderson (US 20150273604 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Schwarz is silent on determining that the welded joint does not meet an acceptable weld quality using the weld quality determined from the welding envelope;
halting the adaptive welding;
repairing a portion of the welded joint not meeting the acceptable weld quality; and
restarting the adaptive welding after repairing the portion of the welded joint.
However, Anderson teaches a method of welding two work pieces (0003) including steps of determining that the welded joint does not meet an acceptable weld quality using the weld quality determined from the welding envelope (step 906 in Fig 9, the braze or weld joint is unacceptable according to a predetermined reference/envelope, [0049]);
halting the adaptive welding (proceed to repair step 910, interpreted as halting the normal adaptive welding method);
repairing a portion of the welded joint not meeting the acceptable weld quality (912, Fig 9); and
restarting the adaptive welding after repairing the portion of the welded joint (proceed to start at step 904 after repair step 912, Fig 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the following steps to the method in Schwarz, of determining that the welded joint does not meet an acceptable weld quality using the weld quality determined from the welding envelope;
halting the adaptive welding;
repairing a portion of the welded joint not meeting the acceptable weld quality; and
restarting the adaptive welding after repairing the portion of the welded joint, as suggested and taught by Anderson, because these repair paths are automatically generated, reducing the time for manual inspection and manual repair (0053).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz in view of Dattawadkar (US 20160369878 A1).
Regarding claim 9
Schwarz discloses the method of claim 1.
Schwarz is silent on wherein the welded joint comprises a weld bead disposed between the first workpiece and the second workpiece,
wherein the first workpiece comprises a first chamfered surface angled away from the weld bead,
wherein the second workpiece comprises a second chamfered surface angled away from the weld bead, and
wherein an angle between the first chamfered surface and the second chamfered surface is less than or equal to about 75 degrees.
However, Dattawadkar teaches welding between two workpieces (Fig 5B),
wherein the welded joint comprises a weld bead (weld bead W, Fig 5B) disposed between the first workpiece (150, [0026]) and the second workpiece (180, [0026]),
wherein the first workpiece (150) comprises a first chamfered surface (154) angled away from the weld bead (W),
wherein the second workpiece (180) comprises a second chamfered surface (184) angled away from the weld bead (W), and
wherein an angle between the first chamfered surface and the second chamfered surface is less than or equal to about 75 degrees (“about” is interpreted to be near but not exact, chamfers 154 and 184 arranged at an angle of 45 degrees, [0027 bottom]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form chamfers on the first and second workpieces in Schwarz, such that the first workpiece comprises a first chamfered surface angled away from the weld bead,
wherein the second workpiece comprises a second chamfered surface angled away from the weld bead, and
wherein an angle between the first chamfered surface and the second chamfered surface is less than or equal to about 75 degrees, as suggested and taught by Dattawadkar, because the chamfers provide easy access for the weld torch to work on the weld joint (0027 bottom).
Regarding claim 10
Schwarz in view of Dattawadkar discloses the method of claim 9.
Schwarz in view of Dattawadkar is silent on wherein the angle between the first chamfered surface and the second chamfered surface is less than or equal to about 25 degrees.
However, Dattawadkar teaches welding between two workpieces (Fig 5B), wherein an angle between the first chamfered surface and the second chamfered surface is equal to 45 degrees (“about” is interpreted to be near but not exact, chamfers 154 and 184 arranged at an angle of 45 degrees, [0027 bottom]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form chamfers on the first and second workpieces in Schwarz in view of Dattawadkar, to be less than or equal to about 25 degrees, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, Dattawadkar teaches a chamfer angle of 45 degrees while the claim chamfer angle is 25 degrees. The chamfer angles are close such that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have expected them to have the same function, which is to allow access for welding. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz in view of Di Stefano (US 20230040619 A1).
Regarding claim 17
Schwarz discloses the system of claim 11.
Schwarz further discloses an adaptive welding system (lasers beam source 6 for welding workpieces 1 and 2 together, Fig 1) in signal communication with the controller (image evaluation unit/control unit 11, Fig 1), wherein the adaptive welding system comprises:
a welding tool (laser beam source 6);
at least a portion of the one or more sensors (images recorded by the sensor are passed to an image evaluation unit 11, Figs 3-5, Col 5 lines 53-55).
Schwarz is silent on an actuation mechanism configured to move the welding tool.
However, Di Stefano teaches a welding system (Fig 3) having an actuation mechanism (112f invoked, actuator 2 in Fig 2, [0041 bottom]) configured to move the welding tool (actuators 2 to move the laser beam emitted by welding tool 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to move the welding tool in Schwarz by an actuation mechanism being actuators, as suggested and taught by Di Stefano, to automate the welding process thus promoting precise and automatic control rather than performing manually by hand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holverson (US 20140332514 A1) teaches a welding system
Knoener (US 20190015920 A1) teaches a method to communicate a weld
Lin (US 20140027415 A1) teaches an adaptive welding method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights