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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 02/26/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of JP2021-029933 application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged. 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)).
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is] objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “and the shift of the focal position, the feature quantity and the shift of the focal position being associated with each other.” It seems the underlined limitation is repeated twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-3 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 “a signal”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and also recites “a signal”. It is not clear if claim 2 refers to a different signal than that of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a feature quantity”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and also recites “a feature quantity”. It is not clear if claim 2 refers to a different feature quantity than that of claim 1.
Dependent claim 3 is rejected based on the dependency on claim 2.
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.
(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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe, US 20200331096 (hereafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 1, A determination method (Fig. 3) for determining a processing state in laser processing for lap welding, the determination method comprising:
detecting, using an optical sensor, (16) at least one of heat radiation light, visible light, and reflected light (paragraph [41] teaches “The light to be detected by the light detector 16 may be reflected light of the laser beam L with which the workpiece W is irradiated, or may be resulting light generated by irradiating the workpiece W with the laser beam L (e.g., plasma, heat emission, etc.).”) generated at a welded portion formed at a surface of a workpiece by emission of a laser beam on the workpiece; (Paragraph [41] teaches “The light detector 16 detects light sensed, in a processing environment including the laser processing apparatus 14 and the workpiece W, at a time when the workpiece W is irradiated with the laser beam L emitted from the laser oscillator 18 and propagating through the light-focusing optical system 20.”)
obtaining, from the optical sensor, a signal indicating a change in the at least one of heat radiation light, visible light, and reflected light in a time section corresponding to a welding time of the workpiece; (Paragraph [56] teaches “When performing the processing steps, the physical quantity Q of light is detected in the same way as the learning steps,”. Fig. 5a-e teaches time-series data of light intensity detected at a certain focal position.)
calculating a feature quantity including a gradient of a straight line approximating a signal waveform of the signal in a predetermined section in the time section; (Paragraph [68] teaches “if the time-series data of light detected over a predetermined time period are acquired as the light detection data D2, the difference in waveform of the light detection data D2 of the respective focal position command data D1 (or teacher data D1) is apparent, so that the one-to-one correlativity of data D1 and D2 is clearly interpreted.” It is understood that one-to-one correlation implies that if focus position changes with time, detected data would also change. )
determining, as the processing state, a shift including farness and closeness of a focal position of the laser beam in an emission direction of the laser beam by inputting the feature quantity to a determination model that determines the processing state; (Paragraph [81] teaches “a positional relationship estimate section 54 configured to estimate a positional relationship R between a workpiece W and an effective light-focusing position F (FIG. 2) of the light-focusing optical system 20 during processing of the workpiece W, by using the learning model M generated by the learning section 36 and the physical quantity Q of light detected by the light detector 16;”)
and outputting the shift of the focal position as a determination result, (Paragraph [81] teaches “a position command correction section 56 configured to correct the focal position command given to the laser processing apparatus 14, based on the positional relationship R estimated by the positional relationship estimate section 54.”)
wherein the determination model (learning model M) is constructed based on training data (Fig. 5a-e are examples of training data) including the feature quantity calculated under a condition where the shift of the focal position is present (Fig. 5a-e are detected at a certain focal position)
and the shift of the focal position, the feature quantity and the shift of the focal position being associated with each other. (Paragraph [68] teaches “as will be understood from FIGS. 5A to 5E, if the time-series data of light detected over a predetermined time period are acquired as the light detection data D2, the difference in waveform of the light detection data D2 of the respective focal position command data D1 (or teacher data D1) is apparent, so that the one-to-one correlativity of data D1 and D2 is clearly interpreted. As a result, it is possible to improve the precision of learning executed by the learning section 36, 44 and thereby generate a highly reliable learning model M.”)
Regarding claim 2,
The determination method according to Claim 1, wherein the determination model includes a learned model generated by machine learning using training data, (Fig. 4)
the training data including (i) a feature quantity calculated from a signal based on the at least one of heat radiation light, visible light, and reflected light detected during the laser processing under each condition of a plurality of conditions where the processing state changes and (Fig. 5a-e)
(ii) the shift of the focal position of the each condition, the feature quantity and the shift of the focal position being associated with each other. (Paragraph [68] teaches “as will be understood from FIGS. 5A to 5E, if the time-series data of light detected over a predetermined time period are acquired as the light detection data D2, the difference in waveform of the light detection data D2 of the respective focal position command data D1 (or teacher data D1) is apparent, so that the one-to-one correlativity of data D1 and D2 is clearly interpreted. As a result, it is possible to improve the precision of learning executed by the learning section 36, 44 and thereby generate a highly reliable learning model M.”)
Regarding claim 3,
The determination method according to Claim 2, wherein the shift of the focal position is determined with reference to a preset reference position on a lapping direction of the lap welding, and the shift of the focal position includes a numerical value indicating a relative position of the focal position with respect to the reference position. (Paragraph [67] teaches “when the focal position command is a relative-position command value of a focal point relative to an irradiated surface of the workpiece W, the focal position command data D1 (or teacher data D1) associated with the respective light detection data D2 is: +(plus) 2.0 mm in FIG. 5A; +(plus) 1.0 mm in FIG. 5B; 0.0 mm in FIG. 5C; −(minus) 1.0 mm in FIG. 5D; and −(minus) 2.0 mm in FIG. 5E. A plus sign means the focal position is on the near side of the irradiated surface of the workpiece W as seen from the light-focusing optical system 20, while a minus sign means the focal position is on the far side of the irradiated surface of the workpiece W as seen from the light-focusing optical system 20. FIG. 5C shows detection data D2 at a time when the laser beam L is focused at the irradiated surface of the workpiece W.”)
Regarding claim 4,
The determination method according to Claim 1, wherein the calculating the feature quantity includes smoothing the signal waveform of the signal before calculating the feature quantity. (Paragraph [70] teaches “In the configuration where the time-series data of light is acquired as the light detection data D2, the learning section 36, 44 can process the time-series data by any one of normalization, smoothing, Fourier transformation, function approximation and differentiation.”)
Regarding claim 5,
The determination method according to Claim 1, wherein the feature quantity includes signal intensity of the signal. (Fig. 5a-e)
Regarding claim 6,
The determination method according to Claim 1, wherein the feature quantity includes an integrated value of the signal intensity of the signal. (Paragraph [70] teaches “In the configuration where the time-series data of light is acquired as the light detection data D2, the learning section 36, 44 can process the time-series data by any one of normalization, smoothing, Fourier transformation, function approximation and differentiation.” It is inherent that Fourier transformation is an integral transformation.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights