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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/10/2023, 5/19/2023, and 7/12/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 12 recite, “a distance measuring part … configured to measure defocus amounts from welding points on the to-be-welded object to the welding part.” The phrase “defocus amounts” will be interpreted as described in Applicant’s specification: “The defocus amount is a distance between a laser focus and an affected substance” (paragraph [0046] of the filed specification).
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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:
“welding part” in claims 1, 2, and 12;
“distance measuring part” in claims 1, 7, and 12;
“position adjustment component” in claim 3;
“positioning part” in claim 5;
“blowing part” in claim 6;
“inspection part” in claim 7;
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.
Applicant’s specification describes the above limitations as follows:
welding part: “welding part 120 may be a laser welding machine” (paragraph [0043] of the filed specification);
distance measuring part: “distance measuring part 130 is a tool for measuring length or distance, and may specifically be a laser distance meter, an ultrasonic distance meter, or an infrared distance meter” [0045];
position adjustment component: “position adjustment component 133 is a mechanism configured to adjust overall position of the distance meters 132 or adjust relative positions of the multiple distance meters 132. For example, the position adjustment component 133 may be a guide rail, a cylinder, or other driving adjustment mechanisms” [0056];
positioning part: “positioning part 140 may be an image capturing apparatus, such as a CCD camera” [0063];
blowing part: “blowing part 150 is configured to connect to an external blowing pipe, and air in the blowing pipe is blown to the welding position through the blowing part 150 to blow away fumes produced during welding in a timely manner, so as to facilitate observation of welding conditions. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 4, the blowing part 150 may be an air knife” [0067]-[0068];
inspection part: “inspection part 160 is a structure configured to inspect and calibrate the distance measuring part 130. Specifically, the inspection part 160 can be provided with a structure having a fixed height difference, and an accuracy of the distance measuring part 130 can be obtained by comparing a height difference measured by the distance measuring part 130 with the actual height difference” [0072]
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (CN 109320990).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Cao discloses [a welding apparatus (as recited in Applicant’s claim 1) / a welding device, comprising a welding apparatus (as recited in Applicant’s claim 12)] (“the invention automatically control[s] processing focus laser processing head by rotating the distance measuring mechanism realizes the measurement of height information, the processing points on the periphery and processing focal length according to the height information in real time” [0023]; the apparatus can be used for “welding” [0023]), comprising:
a body portion (see annotated Fig. 1);
a welding part (Figs. 3, 4, “laser beam 4” [0039] is transmitted through “focusing lens 32” [0039]), disposed on the body portion (see annotated Fig. 3) and configured to weld welding points (see annotated Fig. 4) on a to-be-welded object; and
a distance measuring part (see annotated Fig. 3, “laser displacement sensor 55” [0041]), disposed on the body portion (see annotated Fig. 3) and located on a side of the body portion that faces the welding part (see annotated Fig. 4), and configured to measure defocus amounts from the welding points on the to-be-welded object to the welding part (see Fig. 4; “The wireless distance L of laser displacement sensor, and a wireless laser displacement sensor mounting angle alpha, calculating out the current focus position of the laser beam with the wireless laser displacement sensor measuring point vertical direction Z in the height difference delta-z, calculating formula is delta-z = H-HO, H = L* m*g*sin, HO is current laser processing focal length; After calculating the delta-t seconds after the processing focal length of laser beam focus needs to be adjusted to move to the measurement point of the present wireless laser displacement sensor, absolute value Z, wherein delta-t = delta-v, Z = H0 + delta z, V is the laser beam moving speed preset” [0016]-[0017]; “processing focal length according to the height information in real time” [0023]);
wherein the welding part and the distance measuring part are aligned to different ones of the welding points at a same time (Fig. 4), so that the welding part and the distance measuring part simultaneously perform welding and distance measurement on the different ones of the welding points (Fig. 4; “the wireless laser displacement sensor 55 can always measure the height information in front of the machining point, so as to ensure the laser processing process without stopping the processing focal length of online adjusting” [0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Cao, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
395
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Cao, annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
491
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Cao, annotated
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.
Claims 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 109320990).
Regarding claim 2, Cao does not expressly disclose wherein the distance measuring part comprises multiple distance meters, wherein the multiple distance meters are configured to simultaneously perform distance measurement on multiple welding points on the to-be-welded object; and the welding part is configured to perform welding on the multiple welding points that have been measured by the multiple distance meters.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the distance measuring part comprises multiple distance meters, wherein the multiple distance meters are configured to simultaneously perform distance measurement on multiple welding points on the to-be-welded object; and the welding part is configured to perform welding on the multiple welding points that have been measured by the multiple distance meters, since “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Regarding claim 3, Cao discloses wherein the distance measuring part further comprises a position adjustment component (“servo motor 54 can be driven to rotate disc 51 and wireless laser displacement sensor 55 rotate a certain angle” [0051]).
Cao does not disclose wherein multiple distance meters are all disposed on the position adjustment component.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the multiple distance meters are all disposed on the position adjustment component, since “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 109320990) in view of Onoda (US 2021/0197313).
Regarding claim 5, Cao does not expressly disclose wherein a positioning part is disposed on the body portion.
Onoda is directed to a laser processing apparatus [Abstract]. Onoda discloses wherein a positioning part is disposed on a body portion (positioning part / “light receiving elements 56L and 56R” [0226]; “Examples of elements that can be used as the light receiving elements 56L and 56R include a CMOS image sensor formed of a complementary MOS (CMOS), a CCD image sensor formed of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a position sensitive detector (PSD), and the like” [0230]; “Each of the pair of light receiving elements 56L and 56R are arranged at a rear end of the support base 50” [0226]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a positioning part is disposed on the body portion. A positioning part, such as a CCD image sensor, allows for accurately determining the distance between two objects.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 109320990) in view of Gu et al. (US 2022/0227063).
Regarding claim 6, Cao does not expressly disclose wherein a blowing part is disposed on the body portion.
Gu is directed to a laser welding apparatus [Abstract]. Gu discloses a blowing part associated with a welding apparatus (blowing part / “air knife 600”; “Referring now to FIG. 6, shown is a simplified diagram illustrating the major systems of a laser transmission welding apparatus including an air knife 600 and an optical sensor 602 for cleaning a working surface” [0033]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a blowing part is disposed on the body portion. The blowing part / air knife allows for cleaning a working surface. Additionally, regarding the claimed language of “disposed on the body portion,” it would have been obvious to position the blowing part on the body portion, as the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 109320990) in view of Wiesner et al. (US 2020/0023585).
Regarding claim 7, Cao does not expressly disclose an inspection part, wherein the inspection part is configured to inspect and calibrate the distance measuring part.
Wiesner is directed to a device for calibrating an irradiation system, such as a laser system [0001]. Wiesner discloses an inspection part, wherein the inspection part is configured to inspect and calibrate the distance measuring part (Figs. 2 and 3a, inspection part / “calibrating structure 36” [0067]; “Within the base region 34 there is provided a calibrating structure 36, comprising two calibrating portions 37. The calibrating portions are in the form of depressions within the base region 34 and, more precisely, in the form of elongate recesses formed by cutting. This is clear from the enlarged partial view B in FIG. 2, which shows an end portion of one of the calibrating portions 37” [0067]; “In order to carry out a calibration operation, the control unit 26 causes the irradiation system 20 to direct a processing beam in the form of one of the laser beams 24a,b from FIG. 1 according to a predetermined movement path onto at least one of the calibrating portions 37. In particular, the processing beam, which is provided during the calibration with a deliberately reduced power which does not have solidifying action, can first be directed onto a surface of the base region 34, which surrounds the calibrating structure 36, and then be moved in the direction of one of the calibrating portions 37. The sensor arrangement 25 can, parallel thereto, detect the back reflections of the radiation from the base region 34 and/or the calibrating structure 36” [0071]; “a distance measurement can also be made. The calibrating structure can thereby be detectable as a region in which the measured distance values deviate at least locally from the surroundings, that is to say, for example, are locally increased or reduced” [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inspection part, wherein the inspection part is configured to inspect and calibrate the distance measuring part. This allows for calibrating the distance measuring part, such that accurate distance measurements can be made.
Regarding claim 8, Cao does not expressly disclose wherein a step-like structure is disposed on the inspection part.
Wiesner discloses wherein a step-like structure is disposed on the inspection part (see Fig. 3a, showing wherein calibrating portion 37 includes “base region 34” [0067] and “secondary portions 44” [0069], forming a step-like structure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a step-like structure is disposed on the inspection part. As described in the rejection of claim 7, this allows for calibrating the distance measuring part, such that accurate distance measurements can be made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 109320990) in view of Wiesner et al. (US 2020/0023585), further in view of Wallack et al. (US 2018/0374239).
Regarding claim 9, Cao / Wiesner does not expressly disclose wherein positioning through holes are provided at corners of the inspection part.
Wallack is directed to a calibration object [Abstract]. Wallack discloses positioning through holes, provided on an inspection part / calibration object (Fig. 7 shows “calibration object 700” [0066]; “the calibration object can include through-holes for mounting the calibration object to a mounting plate” [0066]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include positioning through holes are provided at corners of the inspection part. This allows for mounting the inspection part at a desired location. Additionally, regarding the claimed language of “provided at corners of the inspection part,” it would have been obvious to provide the positioning through holes at corners of the inspection part, as the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 109320990) in view of Wiesner et al. (US 2020/0023585) and Wallack et al. (US 2018/0374239), further in view of Woo et al. (US 2014/0354797).
Regarding claim 10, Cao / Wiesner / Wallack does not expressly disclose wherein the inspection part is further provided with blind holes.
Woo is directed to a calibration object [Title]. Woo discloses wherein an inspection part is provided with a blind hole (Figs. 1 and 2a show inspection part / “calibration block” [0045] provided with a blind hole / “stepped part 12” [0071]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the inspection part is further provided with blind holes. This is a known configuration of a calibration object / inspection part, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results. Additionally, regarding the claimed language of “blind holes,” “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the position adjustment component comprises a first slide rail and a second slide rail that are disposed perpendicular to each other, wherein the first slide rail is fastened on the body portion, the second slide rail is slidably disposed on the first slide rail, and the distance meters are slidably disposed on the second slide rail, as required in claim 4.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the inspection part is rectangular; the positioning through holes comprise a first through hole, a second through hole, a third through hole, and a fourth through hole; and the blind holes comprise a first blind hole closest to the first through hole with a distance of la, a second blind hole closest to the second through hole with a distance of lb, a third blind hole closest to the third through hole with a distance of lc, and a fourth blind hole closest to the fourth through hole with a distance of ld; and la> lb = lc> ld, as required in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761