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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim (s) 1-8 and 11 (with claims 9-10 withdrawn) in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 was acknowledged and has been entered. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Accordingly, claims 9-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. An action on the merits for Claims 1-8 and 11 are as follow.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The claim to priority filled on 03/08/2023 acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2023, 03/23/2023 and 03/21/2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
A. Claim limitation “computer program product runs on a machine controller of a processing machine” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “run” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0040], Fig. 1, a machine controller 17 controls the movement of the scanners 6, 11.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKUMARU et al. (JP 2004 222458 A) in view of Lessmüller et al. (DE 102016 001661 B3).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, FUKUMARU et al. disclose a method for monitoring and/or controlling in a closed loop a laser welding process (see Title, Abstract) for welding together two workpieces of metallic material using a processing laser beam that is directed at end faces of the two workpieces arranged next to one another in order to melt a melt pool at the end faces, wherein in the laser welding process, the melt pool forms a melt bead, and the melt bead then solidifies to form a weld bead, the method comprising:
during the laser welding process:
scanning the melt pool and/or the melt bead using measurement beam in at least one line scan (the weld ball 41 is illuminated with direct light 57),
determining an actual geometry of the melt pool and/or the melt bead based on the at least one line scan (the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 is determined in advance as shown in Figure 19, and the height of the weld ball 41 is determined from the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 based on the relationship shown in Figure 19, [0064]), and
setting at least one welding parameter controlled in the closed loop based on a
deviation of the actual geometry from a target geometry of the melt pool and/or the melt bead (If there is a gap B in the weld ball 41 that does not meet the standard value (S22: No), the process proceeds to S23, where the position of the weld ball 41 is adjusted using a jig, and then the process returns to S21, [0081], Fig 8).
FUKUMARU et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: scanning the melt pool and/or the melt bead using an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement beam in at least one line scan.
Lessmüller et al. teach a method for monitoring and/or controlling in a closed loop a laser welding process (a method for monitoring a workpiece, [0001]; a laser processing beam to join, for example, two or more workpieces or workpiece parts together, [0002]), and scanning the melt pool and/or the melt bead using an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement beam in at least one line scan (scanning the measuring beam (OCT measuring beam), [0020]. Note: “scanning the melt pool and/or the melt bead using measurement beam in at least one line scan” taught by FUKUMARU et al. already).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify FUKUMARU et al. with Lessmüller et al.’s further teaching of scanning the melt pool and/or the melt bead using an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement beam in at least one line scan; because Lessmüller et al. teach, in Para. [0001] of providing a measuring device for a machining system for excellently machining a workpiece by means of a high-energy machining beam.
Claim 2, further comprising: after the laser welding process:
scanning the weld bead using a second OCT measurement beam in at least a
second line scan (scanning the melt pool and/or the melt bead using an optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement beam in at least one line scan (scanning the measuring beam (OCT measuring beam), [0020], Lessmüller et al.),
determining an actual geometry of the weld bead (the width of the surrounding portions 41I and 41J of the weld ball 41 is known, the distance from the direct lighting 56 and 57 to the weld ball 41, and consequently the height of the weld ball 41, can be determined, [0063], FUKUMARU et al.) based on the second line scan (the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 is determined in advance as shown in Figure 19, and the height of the weld ball 41 is determined from the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 based on the relationship shown in Figure 19, [0064], FUKUMARU et al.),
and
monitoring a quality of the weld bead based on a deviation of the actual
geometry of the weld bead from a target geometry of the weld bead (safe approach for quality inspection, and since the welding quality is improved by the welding method, [0060], the sequence of each operation in this embodiment described above will be explained based on the flowchart in Figure 8, [0078], FUKUMARU et al.).
Claim 3, wherein scanning the melt pool and/or the melt bead using the OCT measurement beam is performed in at least two different line scans that are at right angles with respect to one another (the use of optical coherence tomography enables improved three-dimensional process monitoring, [0004], Lessmüller et al.).
Claim 4, wherein the actual geometry of the melt pool comprises at least one of the following actual geometry features: a diameter and a roundness of the melt pool (the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 is determined in advance as shown in Figure 19, [0064], FUKUMARU et al.).
Claim 5, wherein the actual geometry of the meld bead comprises at least one of the following actual geometry features: a diameter, a height and a curvature of the melt bead (the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 is determined in advance as shown in Figure 19, and the height of the weld ball 41 is determined from the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 based on the relationship shown in Figure 19, [0064], FUKUMARU et al.).
Claim 6, wherein the actual geometry of the weld bead comprises at least one of the following actual geometry features: a diameter, a height and a curvature of the weld bead (the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 is determined in advance as shown in Figure 19, and the height of the weld ball 41 is determined from the white width of the surrounding portion of the weld ball 41 based on the relationship shown in Figure 19, [0064], FUKUMARU et al.).
Claim 7, further comprising: upon determining that the weld bead is defective, automatically re-welding the weld bead or triggering an alert (If there is a gap B in the weld ball 41 that does not meet the standard value (S22: No), the process proceeds to S23, where the position of the weld ball 41 is adjusted using a jig, and then the process returns to S21, [0082], Fig 8, FUKUMARU et al.).
Claim 8, wherein the at least one welding parameter comprises a welding duration (the sequence of each operation in this embodiment described above will be explained based on the flowchart in Fig 8, [0078-0082]; clearly, the operation procedure shown in Fig 8 need to be including a welding time control- welding duration as claimed, FUKUMARU et al.).
Claim 11, a computer program product comprising instructions for performing the method as claimed in claim 1 when the computer program product runs on a machine controller of a processing machine (The measuring device 10 is coupled to a machining system 12 and together with it forms a device 14 according to the invention for monitoring and machining a workpiece 16, [0051], Fig 1, Lessmüller et al.; clearly, “the computer program product” needs to “runs on a machine controller of a processing machine” as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights