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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “the position of the support assembly” should be corrected to –the position of the support assembly--.
In claim 10, “a measuring device of claim 1” should be corrected to –the measuring device of claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 5, “a current measuring position” is interpreted as not necessarily the same “current measuring position” recited in claim 1.
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:
fastening unit in claims 1-7 and 10-12 interpreted as a holder or a holder and drive unit
control unit in claims 1-12 interpreted according to ¶73 as “a processor, a random-access memory, a non-volatile memory, and corresponding programming.”
optical deflection element in claim 6 interpreted according to ¶29 as a mirror or prism
support assembly in claims 8-9 with no particular disclosed structure other than element 62’ in Fig 4
drive unit in claim 9 with no particular disclosed structure other than element 64’ in Fig 4
welding device in claim 10 interpreted according to ¶21 as “a gas-shielded welding device, in particular a MIG/MAG welding device. The welding device may comprise a welding torch.”
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8-9 limitation “support assembly” and claim 9 limitation “drive unit” are interpreted under 112(f), but the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure. Fig 4 does not provide sufficient detail to determine the structure. It is recommended to overcome this rejection by rewriting these limitations so that they do not invoke 112(f).
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 recite “the leading beam increases along the initial portion and/or that the trailing beam decreases along the end portion.” It is not clear what it means for a beam to increase or decrease, rendering the claim indefinite. For example, a beam could increase in power, diameter, intensity, etc. The limitation is interpreted as related to a position of the beam, although substantial clarification is needed. Applicant may wish to review the priority document in German and check whether a clearer translation is possible. It is possible that what was intended is “a leading distance of the leading beam increases along the initial portion and/or that a trailing distance of the trailing beam decreases along the end portion.”
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8-9 limitation “support assembly” and claim 9 limitation “drive unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, apart from the schematic representation in Fig 4. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webster (US 2016/0039045).
PNG
media_image1.png
933
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Webster discloses:
A measuring device for performing measurements on a workpiece which are used to prepare (¶210, ¶218) and/or assess a weld seam produced by a welding device and having an initial portion and/or an end portion (implicit), comprising: a measuring unit comprising an optical coherence tomograph (¶142) including a sample beam source (21, see Fig 2, ¶85) for producing a sample beam as well as a sample head (23) by means of which the sample beam can be outcoupled, wherein the sample beam can be selectively focused on different measuring positions (20a-20i, see Fig 1) relative to a current machining position along the weld seam, so that, with respect to a machining direction, a leading beam (20g, 20a) and/or a trailing beam (20c, 20d, 20e, 20f) of a current measuring position are adjustable relative to the current machining position (¶61 “a single beam source that is reconfigured to produce each of the beams in sequence”);
a fastening unit (see annotated Fig 2 above) which is configured to attach at least the sample head (23) to the welding device (laser head 28) in such a way that the sample head is moved along with the welding device when the welding device is moving relative to the workpiece (see Fig 2); and
a control unit (¶96 “The mirror 43 is actuated by a motorized system (not shown) such that the imaging beam 20 can be directed to multiple locations within the PCR.” ¶206, “imaging would be done at multiple locations in and near the PCR (depicted in FIG. 1 as imaging beams 20a through 20i) in rapid succession (perhaps up to 100 kHz or more). In some embodiments, this is achieved by using an electronically movable mirror (depicted in FIG. 3 as 43) under imaging system control.”) which is configured to dynamically adjust the leading beam and/or the trailing beam during machining along the weld seam such that the leading beam increases (from 20b to 20a or 20g, or from 20a to 20g) along the initial portion and/or that the trailing beam decreases (in a direction from 20f toward 20b) along the end portion (the beam positions shown in Fig 1 together with ¶61 “a single beam source that is reconfigured to produce each of the beams in sequence,” see also ¶39 “dynamically (i.e., sometimes the top, sometimes the bottom based on keyhole oscillations) cover both locations.” The beam cycling rapidly, according to ¶206, through some or all of the positions shown throughout processing meets this limitation.).
Regarding claim 2, Webster discloses:
the control unit is configured to set the leading beam at a starting point of the weld seam substantially to zero and/or to set the trailing beam at an end point of the weld seam substantially to zero (the beam cycles through positions including the zero position at 100 kHz or more, see ¶206, and thus will be at the zero position at a times/positions that include the starting point and the end point.).
Regarding claim 10, Webster discloses:
A machining system for welding a workpiece, comprising:
a welding device; and a measuring device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein at least the sample head (23) of the measuring device is fastened to the welding device by means of the fastening unit of the measuring device (see Fig 3).
Claim 11 is a method corresponding substantially to the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected over Webster for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Webster discloses:
A method for machining a workpiece, comprising:
producing a weld seam (¶218 describes joints, butt weld, seam) having an initial portion and/or an end portion (implicit) on a workpiece (12, 14); producing a sample beam (imaging beam 20) using an optical coherence tomograph (¶142); focusing the sample beam on different measuring positions (20a-20g, see Fig 1) during machining of the workpiece, wherein, with respect to a machining direction, a leading beam (20g, 20a) and/or a trailing beam (20c, 20d, 20e, 20f) of a current measuring position are adjusted relative to a current machining position along the weld seam; and dynamically adjusting (¶61 “a single beam source that is reconfigured to produce each of the beams in sequence”) the leading beam (20g, 20a) and/or the trailing beam (20c, 20d, 20e, 20f) during machining along the weld seam such that the leading beam increases (from 20b to 20a or 20g, or from 20a to 20g) along the initial portion and/or that the trailing beam decreases (in a direction from 20f toward 20b) along the end portion (the beam positions shown in Fig 1 together with ¶61 “a single beam source that is reconfigured to produce each of the beams in sequence,” see also ¶39 “dynamically (i.e., sometimes the top, sometimes the bottom based on keyhole oscillations) cover both locations.” The beam cycling rapidly, according to ¶206, through some or all of the positions shown throughout processing meets this limitation.).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster (US 2016/0039045) in view of Lessmüller (DE 102016014564, with reference to the translation filed by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 5, Webster does not disclose:
the control unit is configured to, during machining along the weld seam, deflect the sample beam at a current measuring position transversely and/or obliquely to the machining direction along a sample line and to control the optical coherence tomograph in such a way that a height profile can be generated along the sample line.
Lessmüller teaches:
scanning transversely across the machining path ahead of the machining beam “to generate a profile of the unprocessed joining edge between the workpiece parts” (¶57)
scanning transversely across the melt pool to determine “the position and/or the width of the melt bath” (¶60)
scanning transversely across the machining path behind the machining beam “to generate a profile of the machined joint edge between the workpiece parts” (¶58).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Webster by configuring the measurement beam to deflect transversely across the machining path/direction, as taught by Lessmüller to generate a height profile of the unprocessed joining edge, the melt pool, and the machined joint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 3 and 4, the prior art does not disclose a gradual increase, decrease, or a constant value in conjunction with the other claim limitations. The prior art teaches constantly switching among different positions.
Regarding claims 6-9, the prior art does not teach details of the fastening unit, or a support assembly movable relative to the holder in conjunction with the other claim limitations.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, Lessmüller2 (US 2021/0237208) discloses:
A measuring device for performing measurements on a workpiece which are used to prepare and/or assess a weld seam (¶47) produced by a welding device (40, ¶69) and having an initial portion and/or an end portion (implicitly disclosed by 56 in Fig 1), comprising:
a measuring unit comprising an optical coherence tomograph (18, ¶72) including a sample beam source (¶72 “For generating the measurement beam 16, the coherence tomograph comprises a laser”) for producing a sample beam …wherein the sample beam can be selectively focused on different measuring positions relative to a current machining position along the weld seam, so that, with respect to a machining direction, a leading beam and/or a trailing beam of a current measuring position are adjustable relative to the current machining position (¶73 “The deflection device 64 allows the measurement beam 16 to be deflected relative to the machining beam 14, so that the machining beam 14 and the measurement beam 16 can be directed at a common point of impingement or at different points of impingement”);
… the sample head is moved along with the welding device when the welding device is moving relative to the workpiece (¶41 “it can also be provided according to the invention that the optical coherence tomograph, and in particular the sensor system thereof, is arranged on the industrial robot, for example within and/or close to the machining head. The coherence tomograph can then be movable together with the machining head”); ...
Lessmüller2 (US 2021/0237208) does not disclose:
a sample head by means of which the sample beam can be outcoupled,
a fastening unit which is configured to attach at least the sample head to the welding device
a control unit which is configured to dynamically adjust the leading beam and/or the trailing beam during machining along the weld seam such that the leading beam increases along the initial portion and/or that the trailing beam decreases along the end portion.
Regarding claim 1, Lessmüller3 (US 2016/0356595) discloses:
A measuring device for performing measurements on a workpiece which are used to prepare and/or assess a weld seam (¶24) produced by a welding device and having an initial portion and/or an end portion (implicit), comprising:
a measuring unit (12) comprising an optical coherence tomograph (¶99) including a sample beam source (34, ¶101) for producing a sample beam as well as a sample head by means of which the sample beam can be outcoupled, wherein the sample beam can be selectively focused on different measuring positions relative to a current machining position (¶104, ¶113, ¶124-¶125, ¶127-¶131 describes this function in various embodiments) along the weld seam, so that, with respect to a machining direction, a leading beam and/or a trailing beam of a current measuring position are adjustable relative to the current machining position (see Fig 3, leading beam at 54 can go to zero at 58; trailing beam at 56 can go to zero at 58, 58 itself can be either leading, trailing, or at the processing position 52);
…
a control unit (¶39-¶40) which is configured to dynamically adjust the leading beam and/or the trailing beam during machining along the weld seam such that the leading beam increases along the initial portion and/or that the trailing beam decreases along the end portion (the measurement position shifts between 54, 58, and 56, ¶125, see Fig 11a, ¶137), ¶117.
Lessmüller3 does not disclose:
a fastening unit which is configured to attach at least the sample head to the welding device in such a way that the sample head is moved along with the welding device when the welding device is moving relative to the workpiece
Strebel (US 20190143458 A1) discloses monitoring a weld seam with optical coherence tomography wherein the measurement beam travels in a circle about the machining beam.
PNG
media_image2.png
170
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hermani (US 2020/0238436) discloses measuring a weld with optical coherence tomography (¶43) at one or more leading and trailing positions (¶30).
PNG
media_image3.png
801
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights