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
The claim to priority to 63/324,294, filed on March 28, 2022 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 27, 2023, November 15, 2023 and July 3, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phraseology that can be implied and refers to the purported merits. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b)&(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michaut (US Pub. 2013/0056524).
Regarding claim 1, Michaut discloses a method and device for controlling a thermal cycle of a weld joining ends of strips together comprising: receiving weld data about a weld (Abstract; Par. 21, 27-28, 39 and 70-74); analyzing (Fig. 4, analysis module C113), using a physical-based model (Par. 54, formula 1; Par. 67, mathematical model), the weld data to predict a formation of defect in the weld (Par. 33, “database”, Par. 53 “weld quality”, “embrittlement of the weld”, and Par. 73 and 75-77); and providing feedback to enable process optimization during a design sage or active control during welding to control a welding machine to correct for and estimate the formation of the defect in the weld (Par. 23, 27, 38-40, 53 and 70-73).
Regarding claim 2, Michaut discloses wherein receiving the weld data about the weld comprises capturing the weld data about the weld during component and process design (Par. 21, 27-28, 39 and 70-74).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaut (US Pub. 2013/0056524) in view of Pesme et al. (US Pub. 2016/0193680).
Regarding claims 3, Michaut discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including a measurement of the energy available at the output of the welding energy source and/or a measurement of the welding device movement speed and/or a measurement of the time and temperature of said weld, based on the welding parameter values which can be measured in real time (Par. 39, 73 and 77) except wherein receiving the weld data about the weld comprises capturing the weld data about the weld using a sensor, wherein the sensor is one or more of camera, a pyrometer, or a spectrometer. Pesme et al. discloses wherein receiving the weld data about the weld comprises capturing the weld data about the weld using a sensor, wherein the sensor is one or more of camera (104) or a pyrometer (128) (Par. 14-15, 35 and 37-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Michaut, wherein receiving the weld data about the weld comprises capturing the weld data about the weld using a sensor, wherein the sensor is one or more of camera, a pyrometer, or a spectrometer, as taught by Pesme et al., capturing the data and inputting to the control for controlling the welding process.
Regarding claim 4, Pesme et al. discloses wherein receiving the weld data about the weld comprises capturing the weld data about the weld from sensors (camera 104 and pyrometer 128) and controls within the welding machine (Fig. 1; Par. 14, 35 and 37-41).
Regarding claim 5, Pesme et al. discloses the sensors (camera 104 and pyrometer 128) and controls (via controller 122) within the welding machine (100) comprises a power input (Par. 35) or a travel sped (Par. 33-34, 39 and 41).
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaut (US Pub. 2013/0056524) in view of Pesme et al. (US Pub. 2016/0193680) and further view of Mehr et al. (US Pub. 2020/0096970).
Regarding claims 6-7, Michaut/Pesme disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except the weld data is computationally processed through a series of algorithm to predict steps in a welding process; and wherein the analyzing the weld data comprises analyzing the weld data using algorithm to predict a defect formation. Mehr et al. discloses the weld data is computationally processed through a series of algorithm to predict steps in a welding process; and wherein the analyzing the weld data comprises analyzing the weld data using algorithm to predict a defect formation (Abstract; Par. 27, 30-32, 34, 43, 109 and 126-134). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Michaut/Pesme, the weld data is computationally processed through a series of algorithm to predict steps in a welding process; and wherein the analyzing the weld data comprises analyzing the weld data using algorithm to predict a defect formation, as taught by Mehr et al., for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the process and/or the quality of the part being fabricated.
Regarding claim 8, Mehr et al. discloses the predict defect formation provides input to steps of a design optimization or active control inputs (Abstract; Par. 3-5, 8, 27-28 and 43).
Regarding claims 9-10, Mehr et al. discloses wherein the design optimization is conducted by automated routines or by manual assessment of parameters based on a design and process constraint; and wherein the design and process constraint comprises one or more a weld joint geometry, power setting, and a total power input (Par. 3-5, 27-28, 32, 34 and 55-56; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Mehr et al. discloses the active control during welding is conducted by analysis of instantaneous sensor measurement and prediction of weld stability (Abstract; Par. 27, 43, 114-116, 122, 127 and 130-133).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaut (US Pub. 2013/0056524) in view of Di Stefano et al. (US Pub. 2023/0040619).
Regarding claim 12, Michaut discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the welding machine (M11) (Fig. 4) except the welding machine is a robot welding machine. Di Stefano et al. discloses the welding machine is a robot welding machine (Fig. 3; Par. 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Michaut, the welding machine is a robot welding machine, as taught by Di Stefano et al., for the purpose of suitable to the user application to have an actuators/robot in order to move the beam emitted by the welding head along the welding path.
Regarding claim 13, Di Stefano discloses the robotic welding machine (via 2, Fig. 3) includes control system algorithms (20) to perform defect prediction based on sensor data (via thermal camera 3) (Fig. 3; Par. 82, 98-100 and 102).
Regarding claim 14, Di Stefano discloses the robotic welding machine (2) actively calculates stability of instantaneous weld conditions and autonomously adjusts parameters to maintain stability and defect-free welds (Par. 22, 94-96 and 98-99).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaut (US Pub. 2013/0056524) in view of Brescoe et al. (US Pub. 2020/0254562).
Regarding claims 15-16, Michaut discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including a laser power (Par. 46) except the laser power at a weld start is gradually increase, and wherein the laser power at a weld stop is gradually decrease. Brescoe et al. discloses the laser power at a weld start is gradually increase, and wherein the laser power at a weld stop is gradually decrease (Fig. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Michaut, the laser power at a weld start is gradually increase, and wherein the laser power at a weld stop is gradually decrease, as taught by Bresco et al., for the purpose of preventing undesirable cracking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761