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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 22 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ao in view of Ivanov (US 20170164102) with National Instruments provided as evidence. Specifically, the arguments presented by the applicant towards National Instruments not disclosing individually adjustable gain for each channel is found to be convincing.
As the withdrawal of the rejection is in response to arguments and no amendments, this action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao (“Extraction of the Acoustic Signal from Laser Welding in a Noisy Environment with a Microphone Array”) in view of Ivanov (US 20170164102) with National Instruments (“NI 447x Specifications”) provided as evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Ao discloses An apparatus for laser processing a workpiece and monitoring the laser processing, comprising:
a laser processing head configured to direct a laser beam to a workpiece (Pg. 133, Figure 1), the laser processing head including an objective lens configured to focus the laser beam (Pg. 133 describes a lens for the beam);
a collection of three or more acoustic sensors attached to the laser processing head and distributed about an optical axis of the laser beam as incident on the workpiece (Figures 1, 3, and 4 show eight acoustic sensors attached to the laser head), each of the acoustic sensors configured to produce an electrical signal in response to an acoustic signal incident (Pages 133-135 describe the sensors as microphones, which create an electrical signal from sound) thereon; and
a plurality of amplifiers (Pg. 133 describes an NI PCI-4472 used for the recording of the acoustic signals), each (a) electrically connected to a respective one of the acoustic sensors, (b) configured to amplify the electrical signal from the respective acoustic sensor (National Instruments describes the specifications of the NI PCI-4472 and page 1 describes eight channels, one for each of the eight sensors).
However, Ao with National Instruments provided as evidence doesn’t explicitly disclose independently adjustable gain on each of the channels. Ao and Ivanov are analogous prior art because both describe microphone array systems that monitor audio. Ivanov teaches an array with multiple microphones with an amplifier provided for each channel and an adjustable gain for each individual channel (Par. 0032). Ivanov describes that the individually adjustable gains allows for a plurality of adjustable special directivity patterns (Par. 0032) which allows for more direct focus on the desired sound location (Par. 0007) and reduces interference of the system (Par. 0003). Ivanov further describes that the filtering and modification of the microphones allows for the reduction in undesired noise detected (Par. 0039). As Ao already describes the desire to reduce ambient noise detected, the individual channel gain adjustment of Ivanov would provide the clear benefit of allowing for more specific focus on the beam location to avoid undesired noise from affecting the signals. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the individual channel gain adjustment and corresponding required hardware to the system of Ao because the individually adjustable gains allows for a plurality of adjustable special directivity patterns (Par. 0032) which allows for more direct focus on the desired sound location (Par. 0007) and reduces interference of the system (Par. 0003) along with that the filtering and modification of the microphones allows for the reduction in undesired noise detected (Par. 0039).
Regarding claim 2, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches that the collection of acoustic sensors includes at least four sensors (Ao Figures 1, 3, and 4 show eight acoustic sensors attached to the laser head).
Regarding claim 3, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches a control system configured to receive a user input (Ao Pg. 133 describes the controller and system and Figure 2 shows a connected computer capable of controlling the data parameters) and set the independently adjustable gain of each one of one or more of the amplifiers according to user input (See rejection of claim 1 above for description that the PCI-4472 is capable of independently controlling gain).
Regarding claim 4, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches that the control system includes a graphical user interface configured to present a discrete set of values for the gain of each respective amplifier (Ao Figure 2 shows the data collection system providing a graphical user interface and as described in pg 133 the system conditions are controlled by labview which requires a user input for the experiment parameters); and
the user input includes, for one or more of the amplifiers, a respective value of the gain (See rejection of claim 1 above for description that the PCI-4472 is capable of independently controlling gain) as selected on the graphical user interface (Figure 2 shows the graphical user interface).
Regarding claim 5, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches that each of the acoustic sensors includes a respective microphone having a respective diaphragm configured to vibrate in response to the acoustic signal when incident thereon (Ao Pg. 133 describes that MPA-416 microphones are used which have diaphragms that vibrate in response to noise).
Regarding claim 14, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches for each of the acoustic sensors, a respective analog-to-digital converter configured to convert the electrical signal from analog to digital form (Ao Pg. 133 describes the use of a PCI-4472 as an ADC and as described in the rejection above it has a channel for each sensor); and a control system configured to receive a user input and set a sampling rate for each of one or more of the respective analog-to-digital converters according to the user input (National Instruments pages 1-8 describe that sampling rates can be set and Ao Figure 2 shows that user input can be provided on the computers for the experiment).
Regarding claim 15, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches beamforming circuitry configured to process the electrical signals from at least three acoustic sensors of the collection to optimize a collective sensitivity of the at least three acoustic sensors to acoustic signals originating from a single location (Ao pages 133-146 show the process that uses the data from each and all of the acoustic sensors to optimize and determine the data from the signals originating from the laser weld, which is a single location).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao (“Extraction of the Acoustic Signal from Laser Welding in a Noisy Environment with a Microphone Array”) in view of Ivanov (US 20170164102) with National Instruments (“NI 447x Specifications”) provided as evidence as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zou (US 20210078856).
Regarding claim 6, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches the limitations of claim 5 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Ao in view of Ivanov does not explicitly teach that each of the microphones includes: a respective baffle limiting a field of view of the microphone, and a respective plate covering a receiving aperture of the baffle, the plate having a plurality of through holes.
Ao in view of Ivanov and Zou are analogous prior art because both describe microphones. Zou teaches a baffle 405 with a plate covering the receiving aperture (Figure 2, item 402) where the plate has a plurality of through holes (Par. 0048). Zou describes that the addition of the mesh membrane in the system prevents killer particles from entering the microphone while providing a balance between filtering and performance (Par. 0048). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the baffle, plate, and through holes of Zou in the microphone of Ao in view of Ivanov because the addition of the mesh membrane in the system prevents killer particles from entering the microphone while providing a balance between filtering and performance (Par. 0048).
Regarding claim 7, Ao in view of Ivanov and further in view of Zou teaches that each of the plurality of through holes has a diameter of no more than one millimeter (Zou Paragraph 0048 describes the holes being less than 1 millimeter).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao (“Extraction of the Acoustic Signal from Laser Welding in a Noisy Environment with a Microphone Array”) in view of Ivanov (US 20170164102) with National Instruments (“NI 447x Specifications”) provided as evidence as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schneiter (US 4960970).
Regarding claim 8, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Ao in view of Ivanov does not explicitly teach that each of the acoustic sensors is sensitive to acoustic frequencies greater than 20 kilohertz. Ao in view of Ivanov and Schneiter are analogous prior art because both use microphones with welding systems. Schneiter teaches using a microphone sensitive to up to 150 kHz to monitor the laser weld system. As both Ao in view of Ivanov and Schneiter use microphones to monitor laser weld systems, the microphone detecting up to 150 kHz would provide predictable results as the microphones of Ao. Further, the 150 kHz microphone allows for the monitoring of more frequencies. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the microphone detecting frequencies up to 150 kHz as described in Schneiter as the microphones of Ao in view of Ivanov because this allows for a larger range of frequencies to be detected and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Ao in view of Ivanov does not explicitly teach that each of the acoustic sensors is sensitive to acoustic frequencies up to at least 50 kHz. Ao in view of Ivanov and Schneiter are analogous prior art because both use microphones with welding systems. Schneiter teaches using a microphone sensitive to up to 150 kHz to monitor the laser weld system. As both Ao in view of Ivanov and Schneiter use microphones to monitor laser weld systems, the microphone detecting up to 150 kHz would provide predictable results as the microphones of Ao. Further, the 150 kHz microphone allows for the monitoring of more frequencies. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the microphone detecting frequencies up to 150 kHz as described in Schneiter as the microphones of Ao in view of Ivanov because this allows for a larger range of frequencies to be detected and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao (“Extraction of the Acoustic Signal from Laser Welding in a Noisy Environment with a Microphone Array”) in view of Ivanov (US 20170164102) with National Instruments (“NI 447x Specifications”) provided as evidence as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamath (US 11402499).
Regarding claim 10, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the 103 rejection. However, it does not explicitly teach for each of the acoustic sensors, a respective spectral filter configured to filter frequency-content of the electrical signal from the acoustic sensor, the respective spectral filter being independently configurable.
Ao in view of Ivanov and Kamath are analogous prior art because both describe microphone systems with various background noises. Kamath teaches applying a spectral filter to filter out unwanted signals (column 3, lines 40-53). Ao already describes using the various data to determine what signals and frequencies produce unwanted noise but does not determine applying any filter to filter them out (conclusions and pg 140). As such, providing the filter of Kamath to the system of Ao in view of Ivanov would provide predictable results and allow one of ordinary skill in the art to filter out the background and unwanted noise that was already detected by Ao. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spectral filtering of Kamath in the system of Ao in view of Ivanov because it allows for the elimination of unwanted noise and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Ao in view of Ivanov and further in view of Kamath teaches a control system configured to receive a user input and configure the spectral filter for each of one or more of the acoustic sensors according to the user input (Ao describes the detection of specific signals and Kamath discusses choosing to filter out those noises. Further, Ao Figure 2 shows user input).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao (“Extraction of the Acoustic Signal from Laser Welding in a Noisy Environment with a Microphone Array”) in view of Ivanov (US 20170164102) with National Instruments (“NI 447x Specifications”) provided as evidence as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breyer (US 4825091).
Regarding claim 17, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Ao in view of Ivanov does not explicitly teach that for each of the acoustic sensors, a respective plurality of light sources arranged about a pointing direction of the acoustic sensor and configured to emit pilot beams indicating the pointing direction of the acoustic sensor.
Ao in view of Ivanov and Breyer are analogous prior art because both describe laser systems with sensors. Breyer teaches using a pilot beam on each sensor to allow for the exact placement and direction of the sensor angles (Col. 3, lines 24-43). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pilot beam of Breyer for each sound sensor of Ao in view of Ivanov because it allows for more precise placement and direction of the sensors to provide the best results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao (“Extraction of the Acoustic Signal from Laser Welding in a Noisy Environment with a Microphone Array”) in view of Ivanov (US 20170164102) with National Instruments (“NI 447x Specifications”) provided as evidence as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stork (US 20110278277).
Regarding claim 18, Ao in view of Ivanov teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Ao in view of Ivanov does not explicitly teach a plurality of optical sensors configured to detect at least a portion of optical radiation propagating backwards toward the laser processing head.
Ao in view of Ivanov and Stork are analogous prior art because both describe the monitoring of laser processing systems. Stork teaches providing optical sensors to detect optical radiation from the laser processing (Pars. 0049-0052) in order to determine the quality of the system. Further, as both Ao in view of Ivanov and Stork seek to monitor the quality of laser processing the optical sensors of Stork would provide predictable results in the system of Ao in view of Ivanov. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the optical sensors of Stork in the system of Ao in view of Ivanov because it allows for another method of determining the quality of the system and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 16 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.
See Non-Final Rejection dated 05/13/2026 for full reasons for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights