DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on September 6, 2023.
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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Preliminary amendments filed on September 6, 2023 have been entered.
The abstract of the disclosure has been amended.
The specification has been amended.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0023]: Language “In the first aspect, further, the Gaussian heat source models constructed according to the following expression …” should read “In the first aspect, further, the Gaussian heat source models are constructed according to the following expression …” in order to correct minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “An equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding, comprising:” should read “An equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding[[,]] comprising:” in order to correct minor informalities.
Claim language “extracting, from the energy distribution cloud chart, an energy distribution curve along a center of the heat source” should read “extracting, from the energy distribution cloud chart, an energy distribution curve along a center of the actual laser welding heat source” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “selecting multiple target points of interest from the energy distribution curve, and determining spatial position information of the target points of interest” should read “selecting multiple target points of interest from the energy distribution curve, and determining spatial position information of the multiple target points of interest” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “constructing a corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model for each of the target points of interest according to the spatial position information of the target points of interest and features of the energy distribution curve, and determining a heat source power and a heat source radius of each said Gaussian heat source model according to energy distribution of the actual laser welding heat source” should read “constructing a corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model for each of the multiple target points of interest according to the spatial position information of the multiple target points of interest and features of the energy distribution curve, and determining a heat source power and a heat source radius of each corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model according to energy distribution of the actual laser welding heat source” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “verifying matching degrees between each said Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source, and taking Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source” should read “verifying matching degrees between each corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source, and taking Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding according to Claim 1, wherein the spatial position information of the multiple target points of interest comprises point coordinates of two positions with a maximum energy density and point coordinates of a position with a minimum energy density in the energy distribution cloud chart” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding according to Claim 1, wherein the heat source parameters comprise [[a]]the heat source power, [[a]]the heat source radius and a heat source center” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding according to Claim 1, wherein verifying the matching degrees between each corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source comprises:
constructing [[an]]the energy distribution cloud chart of the corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model, comparing the corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model with the energy distribution cloud chart of the actual laser welding heat source in heat source effective range, point coordinates of positions with a maximum energy density, and point coordinates of positions with a minimum energy density to obtain a cloud chart matching degree;
substituting the corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model into a welding simulation model to obtain heat field distribution in a welding process, and comparing the heat field distribution with an actual weld cross-sectional appearance to obtain a weld appearance matching degree; and
determining that the corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model passes the verification only when the cloud chart matching degree and the weld appearance matching degree are both greater than a set matching degree threshold” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding according to Claim 1, wherein the Gaussian heat source models constructed according to the following expression …” should read “The equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding according to Claim 1, wherein the Gaussian heat source models are constructed according to the following expression …” in order to correct minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “A simulation method for oscillating laser welding, comprising:” should read “A simulation method for oscillating laser welding[[,]] comprising:” in order to correct minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “An equivalent heat source modeling device for oscillating laser welding, comprising:” should read “An equivalent heat source modeling device for oscillating laser welding[[,]] comprising:” in order to correct minor informalities.
Claim language “an extraction module configured to extract, from the energy distribution cloud chart, an energy distribution curve along a center of the heat source, select multiple target points of interest from the energy distribution curve, and determine spatial position information of the target points of interest” should read “an extraction module configured to extract, from the energy distribution cloud chart, an energy distribution curve along a center of the actual laser welding heat source, select multiple target points of interest from the energy distribution curve, and determine spatial position information of the multiple target points of interest” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “an equivalent Gaussian heat source model construction module configured to construct a corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model for each of the target points of interest according to the spatial position information of the target points of interest and features of the energy distribution curve, and determine a heat source power and a heat source radius of each said Gaussian heat source model according to energy distribution of the actual laser welding heat source” should read “an equivalent Gaussian heat source model construction module configured to construct a corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model for each of the multiple target points of interest according to the spatial position information of the multiple target points of interest and features of the energy distribution curve, and determine a heat source power and a heat source radius of each corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model according to energy distribution of the actual laser welding heat source” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “a verification module configured to verify matching degrees between each said Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source, and take Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source” should read “a verification module configured to verify matching degrees between each corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source, and take Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “A simulation device for oscillating laser welding, comprising:” should read “A simulation device for oscillating laser welding[[,]] comprising:” in order to correct minor informalities.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) appear to use the plain meaning of “by means” (e.g., by using). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“performing simulated welding on the to-be-welded workpiece model by means of the constructed equivalent heat source model to obtain welding simulation data” in claim 8.
“perform simulated welding on the to-be-welded workpiece model by means of the constructed equivalent heat source model to obtain welding simulation data” in claim 10.
If applicant intends 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 amend the claim limitation(s).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “constructing, according to heat source parameters of an actual laser welding heat source to be modeled, an energy distribution cloud chart of the actual laser welding heat source in unit time under different oscillating trajectories, oscillating frequencies, oscillating amplitudes and oscillating speeds” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., an energy distribution cloud chart; see Figs. 2-3 and specification at [0048]-[0049], [0061]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “extracting, from the energy distribution cloud chart, an energy distribution curve along a center of the heat source” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes to obtain additional information (i.e., an energy distribution curve; see specification at [0050]-[0051]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations/observations/judgments to obtain additional information from data.
the limitation “selecting multiple target points of interest from the energy distribution curve, and determining spatial position information of the target points of interest” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes to obtain additional information (i.e., multiple target points of interest and spatial position information of the target points of interest; see Fig. 2 and specification at [0050]-[0051]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations/observations/judgments to obtain additional information from data.
the limitation “constructing a corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model for each of the target points of interest according to the spatial position information of the target points of interest and features of the energy distribution curve, and determining a heat source power and a heat source radius of each said Gaussian heat source model according to energy distribution of the actual laser welding heat source” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data to construct models and obtain additional information (i.e., a heat source power and a heat source radius; see specification at [0023]-[0024], [0052]-[0054]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data and obtain additional information.
the limitation “verifying matching degrees between each said Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source, and taking Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to compare information for selection purposes (i.e., taking Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source; see specification at [0055]-[0060]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations/observations/judgments and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare information for selecting models.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (as indicated under Step 2A - Prong One of the test):
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., an equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
add extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., an equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated) which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process … Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 9 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea, Step 2A – Prong One) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or without providing significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole as explained above with regards to claim 1.
The examiner notes that claim 9 recites “an equivalent heat source modeling device for oscillating laser welding”, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (see [0044]), refers to a computer, however, as indicated in the Office’s guidance, adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 3, 5, 7-8 and 10), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., using a particular data type or source), generic computer components and/or field of use (Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Moreover, the examiner submits that under the current guidance:
“Even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula or detailed mental process), the Court has held that a claim may not preempt that judicial exception” (see 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, “III. Update on Certain Areas of the USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Applicable to AI Inventions”, section “A. Evaluation of Whether a Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception (Step 2A)”);
“For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
“Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-10 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Regarding “An equivalent heat source modeling method for oscillating laser welding, comprising: constructing, according to heat source parameters of an actual laser welding heat source to be modeled, an energy distribution cloud chart of the actual laser welding heat source in unit time under different oscillating trajectories, oscillating frequencies, oscillating amplitudes and oscillating speeds”, Chen (LIN CHEN et al., “Effects of laser oscillating frequency on energy distribution, molten pool morphology and grain structure of AA6061/AA5182 aluminum alloys lap welding”, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, October 5, 2021, pp. 3133-3148, Vol. 15, IDS reference) discloses:
“In this study, the effect of oscillating frequency was mainly investigated on laser circular oscillation welding processes. There are many important welding parameters in laser circular oscillation welding, including oscillating pattern, oscillating frequency, oscillating amplitude, laser power and welding speed. Compared with laser welding without oscillating, the characteristic parameters of laser oscillation welding are the first three parameters. Therefore, the selection of laser power and welding speed was based on the consideration of energy conservation and welding efficiency” (p. 3135-3136, section “2.2. Experimental Setup”, par. 1: oscillating pattern, oscillating frequency, oscillating amplitude are important parameters when investigating laser circular oscillation welding processes); and
“To quantitatively compare the energy distribution of welds at different oscillating frequencies, an energy distribution model was optimized from the proposed model of Mahrle et al. … Gaussian distribution was chosen to characterize the energy distribution of laser spot, which was proper to simulate laser welding of thin sheets and validated by Han et al.” (p. 3136, section “2.3. Energy distribution calculate”: Gaussian distributions are used to characterize energy distribution).
Markushov (WO 2020069266 A1) discloses:
“A system and method may be used to visualize laser energy distributions within one or more laser movements generated by a scanning laser processing head. The system and method determine laser energy distributions at a plurality of locations within the laser movement(s) based at least in part on received laser processing parameters and laser movement parameters. A visual representation of the laser energy distributions may then be displayed to allow the user to visualize and select or define the appropriate pattern and parameters for a laser processing operation. The visualization system and method may be used to predict actual laser energy distributions in a laser processing operation by visualizing the laser energy distributions before the laser processing operation and/or to troubleshoot a laser processing operation by visualizing the laser energy distributions after the laser processing operation” (Abstract: laser energy distribution in one or more laser movements by a laser head is obtained by using laser processing and motion parameters, the laser energy distribution being displayed for selecting actual parameters for laser operations).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“extracting, from the energy distribution cloud chart, an energy distribution curve along a center of the heat source;
selecting multiple target points of interest from the energy distribution curve, and determining spatial position information of the target points of interest;
constructing a corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model for each of the target points of interest according to the spatial position information of the target points of interest and features of the energy distribution curve, and determining a heat source power and a heat source radius of each said Gaussian heat source model according to energy distribution of the actual laser welding heat source; and
verifying matching degrees between each said Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source, and taking Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record does not disclose extracting curves from the energy distribution, using these curves for constructing additional Gaussian heat models for determining additional information such as heat source power and heat source radius, and comparing these models to actual laser welding heat source characteristics for verifying models).
Regarding claim 9.
Regarding “An equivalent heat source modeling device for oscillating laser welding, comprising: an energy distribution cloud chart construction module configured to construct an energy distribution cloud chart of an actual laser welding heat source to be modeled under different oscillating trajectories, oscillating frequencies and oscillating amplitudes according to heat source parameters of the actual laser welding heat source”, Chen (LIN CHEN et al., “Effects of laser oscillating frequency on energy distribution, molten pool morphology and grain structure of AA6061/AA5182 aluminum alloys lap welding”, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, October 5, 2021, pp. 3133-3148, Vol. 15, IDS reference) discloses:
“In this study, the effect of oscillating frequency was mainly investigated on laser circular oscillation welding processes. There are many important welding parameters in laser circular oscillation welding, including oscillating pattern, oscillating frequency, oscillating amplitude, laser power and welding speed. Compared with laser welding without oscillating, the characteristic parameters of laser oscillation welding are the first three parameters. Therefore, the selection of laser power and welding speed was based on the consideration of energy conservation and welding efficiency” (p. 3135-3136, section “2.2. Experimental Setup”, par. 1: oscillating pattern, oscillating frequency, oscillating amplitude are important parameters when investigating laser circular oscillation welding processes); and
“To quantitatively compare the energy distribution of welds at different oscillating frequencies, an energy distribution model was optimized from the proposed model of Mahrle et al. … Gaussian distribution was chosen to characterize the energy distribution of laser spot, which was proper to simulate laser welding of thin sheets and validated by Han et al.” (p. 3136, section “2.3. Energy distribution calculate”: Gaussian distributions are used to characterize energy distribution).
Markushov (WO 2020069266 A1) discloses:
“A system and method may be used to visualize laser energy distributions within one or more laser movements generated by a scanning laser processing head. The system and method determine laser energy distributions at a plurality of locations within the laser movement(s) based at least in part on received laser processing parameters and laser movement parameters. A visual representation of the laser energy distributions may then be displayed to allow the user to visualize and select or define the appropriate pattern and parameters for a laser processing operation. The visualization system and method may be used to predict actual laser energy distributions in a laser processing operation by visualizing the laser energy distributions before the laser processing operation and/or to troubleshoot a laser processing operation by visualizing the laser energy distributions after the laser processing operation” (Abstract: laser energy distribution in one or more laser movements by a laser head is obtained by using laser processing and motion parameters, the laser energy distribution being displayed for selecting actual parameters for laser operations).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“an extraction module configured to extract, from the energy distribution cloud chart, an energy distribution curve along a center of the heat source, select multiple target points of interest from the energy distribution curve, and determine spatial position information of the target points of interest;
an equivalent Gaussian heat source model construction module configured to construct a corresponding equivalent Gaussian heat source model for each of the target points of interest according to the spatial position information of the target points of interest and features of the energy distribution curve, and determine a heat source power and a heat source radius of each said Gaussian heat source model according to energy distribution of the actual laser welding heat source; and
a verification module configured to verify matching degrees between each said Gaussian heat source model and the actual laser welding heat source, and take Gaussian heat source models passing the verification as equivalent heat source models of the actual laser welding heat source”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record does not disclose extracting curves from the energy distribution, using these curves for constructing additional Gaussian heat models for determining additional information such as heat source power and heat source radius, and comparing these models to actual laser welding heat source characteristics for verifying models).
Regarding claims 2-8 and 10.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MOCHIZUKI; Tatsuya et al., US 20200130107 A1, MACHINING CONDITION SETTING DEVICE AND 3D LASER MACHINING SYSTEM
Reference discloses a 3D laser machining system having a Gaussian energy distribution as input for simulation purposes.
RUDOLF; Andreas et al., US 20170371166 A1, DEVICE FOR MACHINING MATERIAL BY MEANS OF LASER RADIATION
Reference discloses machining material by laser radiation with energy distribution being adjusted during processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights