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 statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paras[0024] and [0080] recite “neuronal”, which should be “neural”.
Para[0046] recites “bean”, which should be “beam”.
Para[0090] recites “d3”, which should be “d2”.
Para[0106] recites “measuring apparatus 120”, which should be “measuring apparatus 220”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 9 recite “transform” which should be “the transformed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite “the vibration pickup device” although earlier in Claim 1 and in Claim 17 “at least one vibration pickup device” is recited. It is unclear which “vibration pickup device” is being referred to in Claims 1, 18, and 19, rendering these limitations in Claims 1, 18, and 19 as indefinite.
Claim 19 recites “the at least one computing device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “the control device” although earlier in Claim 19 “at least one control device” is recited. It is unclear which “control device” is being referred to in Claim 20, rendering this limitation in Claim 20 as indefinite.
Claim 20 recites “the computing device” although earlier in Claim 19 “at least one computing device” is recited. It is unclear which “computing device” is being referred to in Claim 20, rendering this limitation in Claim 20 as indefinite.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
With regards to Claim 1,
A method for testing a quality of an ultrasonic welded joint during creation of the ultrasonic welded joint using at least one vibration pickup device and a computing device, the method comprising:
detecting vibration signals using the at least one vibration pickup device, wherein the vibration signals are influenced by at least one component of an ultrasonic welding device and at least one workpiece;
creating electric measuring signals in the vibration pickup device based on the detected vibration signals;
transmitting the electric measuring signals to the computing device;
processing at least one signal block of the electric measuring signals in the computing device;
computing at least one characteristic value on the basis of the at least one signal block of the electric measuring signals;
comparing the at least one characteristic value with at least one reference value in the computing device;
determining information indicative of the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint based on the comparison of the at least one characteristic value with the at least one reference value; and
outputting of a warning signal based on the determined information.
With regards to Claim 17,
A measuring apparatus for testing a quality of an ultrasonic welded joint of a workpiece during generation of the ultrasonic welded joint, the apparatus comprising:
at least one vibration pickup device for detecting vibration signals; and
a computing device for comparing at least one characteristic value based on the vibration signals with at least one reference value, said computing device is connected to the at least one vibration pickup device,
wherein the computing device is configured to cause a display device to display information indicative of the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint based on the comparing of the at least one characteristic value with the at least one reference value.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category of a process.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claims recite a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portions constitute an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they recite limitations that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, they fall into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, cover performing mathematics or mental steps, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Additionally, the clam limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, which is testing a quality of an ultrasonic welded joint.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claims that recite a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that even though the claimed method is tied to a particular machine or apparatus (i.e. a measuring apparatus), it does not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field as the measuring apparatus was already produced before the mental steps explained in Step 2A Prong 1. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claim that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because every step in BOLD of Claim 19 points to a mental or mathematical step. In addition, in Claims 1 and 19 the steps of detecting vibration signals using the at least one vibration pickup device, wherein the vibration signals are influenced by at least one component of an ultrasonic welding device and at least one workpiece, creating electric measuring signals in the vibration pickup device based on the detected vibration signals, transmitting the electric measuring signals to the computing device, outputting of a warning signal based on the determined information, display information indicative of the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint amount to nothing more than necessary data gathering and outputting as recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g). Necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) and outputting is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092- 93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a measuring apparatus, the vibration pickup device, the computing device, and the display device are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claims 2-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they are further directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as they amount to nothing more than necessary data gathering as recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g). Necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092- 93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because a computer is a generic computer element and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claims 19-20 integrate the abstract concept into a practical application and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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(s) 1-6, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimas (US 20220023979 A1) in view of Suter (US 20190271669 A1).
With regards to Claim 1, Klimas teaches
detecting a vibration signal using the at least one vibration pickup device (See Para[0082] “The mechanical deflection (i.e. a vibration signal) is measured via an eddy current sensor (i.e. a vibration pickup device)”), wherein the vibration signal is influenced by at least one component of an ultrasonic welding device and at least one workpiece (See Para[0055] “an ultrasonic welding system (i.e. the ultrasonic welding device) comprising a sonotrode (i.e. component of the ultrasonic welding device) for applying a mechanical force to a workpiece; a piezo actuator that is configured to translate an electrical control signal into a mechanical vibration (i.e. a vibration signal, which provides the mechanical deflection, is influenced by the sonotrode as it applies the vibration) and transmit it to the sonotrode”);
creating an electric measuring signal in the vibration pickup device based on the detected vibration signal (See Para[0082] “The mechanical deflection (i.e. vibration signal) is measured (i.e. detected) via an eddy current sensor (i.e. a vibration pickup device)”. Examiner notes that the eddy current sensor senses the vibration signal and outputs an electric measuring signal in response, as it is a reflection of the measured/detected vibration signal);
processing at least one signal block of the electric measuring signal (See Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function” and Para[0055] “to evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. processing)”) in the computing device (See Para[0118] “The apparatuses and methods described in this application may be partially or fully implemented by a special purpose computer (i.e. the computing device)”);
computing at least one characteristic value (See Abstract “the measurement value is characteristic of a mechanical or electrical vibration behavior of a welding process to be tested” and “evaluating a measurement-value course” and “a result (i.e. one characteristic value, as it depends on the measurement value that itself is characteristic of the vibration) of the evaluation (i.e. computing)”.) on the basis of the at least one signal block of the electric measuring signal (See Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function” and Para[0055] “to evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. computing based on the signal blocks of the electric measuring signal)”);
comparing the at least one characteristic value with at least one reference value (See Abstract “the measurement value is characteristic of a mechanical or electrical vibration behavior of a welding process to be tested” and “evaluating a measurement-value course” and See Para[0054] “compare a result (i.e. one characteristic value, as it depends on the measurement value that itself is characteristic of the vibration) of the evaluation to a reference value in order to test the quality of the weld”) in the computing device (See Para[0118] “The apparatuses and methods described in this application may be partially or fully implemented by a special purpose computer (i.e. the computing device)”);
determining information indicative of the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint based on the comparison of the at least one characteristic value with the at least one reference value (See Abstract “non-destructive testing of a quality of an ultrasonic weld (i.e. an ultrasonic welded joint as the weld joins two components) from a welding process” and “comparing a result (i.e. the characteristic value, as it depends on the measurement value that itself is characteristic of the vibration and based on the vibration and see Abstract “the measurement value is characteristic of a mechanical or electrical vibration behavior (i.e. the vibration signal) of a welding process to be tested” and “evaluating a measurement-value course”) of the evaluation to a reference value in order to test the quality of the weld (i.e. the comparison of the result of the evaluation is information indicative of the quality and that information is determined via the evaluation)”); and
outputting of a warning signal based on the determined information (See Fig. 3c, the sharp dropoff of the defective return signal (i.e a warning signal, that reflects a defect, is outputted) and Para[0107] “The vibration analysis can detect defects on the welding system 100 (i.e. the determined information comes from the vibration analysis)”).
Klimas is silent to the language of
vibration signals and electric measuring signals, and
transmitting the electric measuring signals to the computing device.
Suter teaches
vibration signals and electric measuring signals (See Para[0044] “that microphones 0 (111), 1 (112), 2 (113), and 4 (114) are connected to channels 4, 3, 2, and 1” and Fig. 2B. In other words, Fig. 2B shows that multiple vibration signals can be detected by the different channels corresponding to different microphones, and these vibration signals are converted to electric measuring signals via the microphones as they correspond to the measured vibration signals.)
transmitting the electric measuring signals to the computing device (See Fig. 2B where the Channels 1-4 (which are connected to the microphones that detect vibrational signals and convert them to electric measuring signals as they correspond to the measured vibrational signals) are connected to the Laptop 210 (i.e. the computing device)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas wherein vibration signals, electric measuring signals, and transmitting the electric measuring signals to the computing device is done like in Suter in order to have multiple sources of information via the vibration and electric measuring signals to determine the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint for increased precision of quality determination, and the electric measuring signals are sent to the computing device in order to have a specialized component for processing the signals (i.e. the computing device), allowing for a more compartmentalized design.
With regards to Claim 2, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas is silent to the language of
wherein at least two vibration signals are detected in a single region or a single position, wherein said single region or single position is spaced apart from the at least one component of the ultrasonic welding device and the at least one workpiece.
Suter teaches
wherein at least two vibration signals are detected (See Para[0044] “that microphones 0 (111), 1 (112), 2 (113), and 4 (114) are connected to channels 4, 3, 2, and 1” and Fig. 2B. In other words, Fig. 2B shows that multiple vibration signals (i.e. at least two vibration signals) can be detected by the different channels) in a single region or a single position, wherein said single region or single position is spaced apart from the at least one component of the ultrasonic welding device and the at least one workpiece (See Fig. 1, where two microphone positions 111 and 112 correspond to a single region, that is to the bottom right (i.e. spaced apart) of the anvil 101 and workpiece 103, which is part of the ultrasonic welding system 100 (i.e. the anvil is one component of the ultrasonic welding system (i.e. the ultrasonic welding device)), see also Para[0044] “FIG. 2B as illustrated shows that microphones 0 (111), 1 (112), 2 (113), and 4 (114) are connected to channels 4, 3, 2, and 1”. Examiner notes that “or” was recited, indicating a choice, so Examiner chooses “single region”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify wherein at least two vibration signals are detected in a single region or a single position, wherein said single region or single position is spaced apart from the at least one component of the ultrasonic welding device and the at least one workpiece in order to obtain vibration signals from two separate microphones from the same region in order to cross check and verify the vibration signals.
With regards to Claim 3, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
wherein the electric measuring signal (See Para[0082] “The mechanical deflection (i.e. a vibration signal) is measured via an eddy current sensor (i.e. a vibration pickup device)”. Examiner notes that the eddy current sensor senses the vibration signal and outputs an electric measuring signal in response, as it is a reflection of the measured/detected vibration signal) is temporally scanned (See Para[0055] “evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis” and Para[0018] “The use of a Fourier analysis can comprise the use of a short-term Fourier analysis, from which the temporal dependence of the amplitude, frequency, or other values can be determined (i.e. temporally scanning via the determination of the amplitude, frequency, or other values (i.e. which belong to the electric measuring signal) from the Fourier analysis)”) using the computing device (See Para[0118] “The apparatuses and methods described in this application may be partially or fully implemented by a special purpose computer (i.e. the computing device)”).
Klimas is silent to the language of
transmitted electric measuring signals are sent to the computing device.
Suter teaches
transmitted electric measuring signals are sent to the computing device (See Fig. 2B where the Channels 1-4 (which are connected to the microphones that detect vibration signals and convert them to electric measuring signals as they correspond to the measured vibration signals) are connected to the Laptop 210 (i.e. the computing device)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas wherein the transmitted electric measuring signals are sent to the computing device is done like in Suter in order to have a more compartmentalized design where the detecting and scanning steps are done in separate devices.
With regards to Claim 4, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
wherein the electric measuring signal (See Para[0082] “The mechanical deflection (i.e. a vibration signal) is measured via an eddy current sensor (i.e. a vibration pickup device)”. Examiner notes that the eddy current sensor senses the vibration signal and outputs an electric measuring signal in response, as it is a reflection of the measured/detected vibration signal) is divided into signal blocks (See Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks that divide the electric measuring signal) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function” and Para[0055] “to evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. processing)”).
Klimas is silent to the language of
the electric measuring signals.
Suter teaches
the electric measuring signals (See Para[0044] “that microphones 0 (111), 1 (112), 2 (113), and 4 (114) are connected to channels 4, 3, 2, and 1” and Fig. 2B. In other words, Fig. 2B shows that multiple vibration signals can be detected by the different channels corresponding to different microphones, and these vibration signals are converted to electric measuring signals via the microphones as they correspond to the measured vibration signals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas wherein electric measuring signals are used like in Suter in order to have multiple sources of validation for the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint.
With regards to Claim 5, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
performing a Fourier transformation on the processed at least one signal block (See Para[0055] “evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. performing a Fourier transformation)” and Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks that divide the electric measuring signal) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function”. Therefore, the window sections correspond to signal blocks of the original signal that were later Fourier transformed (i.e. processed at least one signal block).); and
transmitting the transformed at least one signal block to an Al module or a regression module (See Para[0049] “With a large amount of data over the temporal courses of the analyzed values of the vibration analysis (i.e. the analyzed values including the transformed at least one signal block) and the associated breakage forces, a classifier could thus be implemented by a neural network (i.e. an AI module, to which the transformed at least one signal block is transmitted to). Examiner notes that “or” was recited, indicating a choice, so Examiner chooses “AI module”.)”).
With regards to Claim 6, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 5. Klimas further teaches
wherein one or more maximum values in transformed at least one signal block are detected (See Para[0018] “The use of a Fourier analysis can comprise the use of a short-term Fourier analysis, from which the temporal dependence of the amplitude (i.e. a maximum value), frequency, or other values can be determined” and Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks that divide the electric measuring signal) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function (i.e. the signal blocks correspond to sections of the measurement signal that become Fourier transformed)” and Para[0055] “evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. performing a Fourier transformation)”), and an analysis curve is created based on the transformed at least one signal block (See Para[0086] “comparison of the evaluated measurement values (i.e. the transformed at least one signal block) to the reference curves”. In other words, the set of evaluated measurement values constitute an analysis curve.).
With regards to Claim 11, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
wherein the vibration signals comprise a frequency of an airborne sound signal or of a structure-borne sound signal, or the vibration signals result from a current or voltage measurement (See Para[0016] “The control signal can be an electrical signal that can excite a piezo actuator to carry out a mechanical vibration (i.e. corresponding to a vibration signal)” and Para[0033] “With the vibration measurement, as measured values voltage and current on an end of the vibration system, in particular on the piezo actuator”. Examiner notes that “or” was recited, indicating a choice, so Examiner chooses “the vibration signals result from a current or voltage measurement”.).
With regards to Claim 12, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
wherein the vibration signals comprise an amplitude of an airborne sound signal or of a structure-borne sound signal, or wherein the vibration signals result from a current or voltage measurement (See Para[0016] “The control signal can be an electrical signal that can excite a piezo actuator to carry out a mechanical vibration (i.e. corresponding to a vibration signal)” and Para[0033] “With the vibration measurement, as measured values voltage and current on an end of the vibration system, in particular on the piezo actuator”. Examiner notes that “or” was recited, indicating a choice, so Examiner chooses “the vibration signals result from a current or voltage measurement”.).
With regards to Claim 13, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
wherein higher harmonics of the vibration signals are detected (See Para[0040] “The above-mentioned measurement values (i.e. vibration signals, see Abstract “the measurement value is characteristic of a mechanical or electrical vibration behavior (i.e. the measurement value is the vibration signal)) can be calculated not only for the fundamental oscillation, but also for the harmonics, i.e., in principle for each harmonic that can still be calculated with the given sample rate. It has been shown that some effects can be made better visible with higher harmonics.” In other words, the detected vibration signals can include the higher harmonics, which are detected via calculation.).
With regards to Claim 14, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas is silent to the language of
wherein a temperature dependency of the detected vibration signals is included.
Suter teaches
wherein a temperature dependency of the detected vibration signals is included (See Para[0047] “When the amplitude of these waves is large, the local temperature is increased in areas of high pressure, which modifies the local speed of sound. This results in sound waves being distorted (i.e. the detected vibration signals, and they are detected because they are detected to be distorted) as they travel.” In other words, the increase of temperature affects the distortion of the sound waves, indicating a temperature dependence of the vibration signals is included in the consideration of the dynamics of the sound waves.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas wherein a temperature dependency of the detected vibration signals is included like in Suter in order to examine more possible sources of issues when determining the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint.
With regards to Claim 15, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
wherein at least a sign of wear of the at least one component of the ultrasonic welding device is recognized based on the vibration signals (See Para[0023] “With a 100% process control by vibration analysis, wear phenomena (i.e. a sign of wear) are made noticeable in a change in the vibration dynamics (i.e. based on the vibration signal).” , Para[0016] “A sonotrode can be mechanically coupled to the piezo actuator in order to mechanically transfer an ultrasonic vibration of the piezo actuator to a workpiece.”, and Para[0056] “The characterization of the system state and the detection connected thereto of damage makes possible a targeted exchanging of worn parts (i.e. at least one component of the ultrasonic welding device) precisely when the wear is noticeable and thus has an impact on the weld quality.” Examiner notes that the “vibration dynamics” includes the vibration signal.)
With regards to Claim 16, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas is silent to the language of
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executed by a computer to perform the method of claim 1.
Suter teaches
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executed by a computer to perform the method (See Para[0011] “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (i.e. a non-transitory computer readable medium) stores one or more programs, the one or more programs comprise instructions (i.e. having instructions stored thereon), which are executable by one or more processors (i.e. a computer can be one of the processors) to sonically detect vibration of workpieces throughout a duration of an ultrasonic weld operation performed by an ultrasonic bonding system (i.e. the method)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas wherein a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executed by a computer to perform the method is done like in Suter in order to have a physical component that can execute the method of Claim 1 (which is taught by Klimas and Suter), allowing for a more compact design.
With regards to Claim 17, Klimas teaches
at least one vibration pickup device for detecting vibration signals (See Para[0082] “The mechanical deflection (i.e. a vibration signal) is measured via an eddy current sensor (i.e. a vibration pickup device)”); and
a computing device (See Para[0118] “The apparatuses and methods described in this application may be partially or fully implemented by a special purpose computer (i.e. the computing device)”) for comparing at least one characteristic value based on the vibration signal with at least one reference value (See Abstract “the measurement value is characteristic of a mechanical or electrical vibration behavior (i.e. the vibration signal) of a welding process to be tested” and “evaluating a measurement-value course” and See Para[0054] “compare a result (i.e. one characteristic value, as it depends on the measurement value that itself is characteristic of the vibration and based on the vibration) of the evaluation to a reference value in order to test the quality of the weld”),
information indicative of the quality of the ultrasonic welded joint based on the comparing of the at least one characteristic value with the at least one reference value (See Abstract “non-destructive testing of a quality of an ultrasonic weld (i.e. an ultrasonic welded joint as the weld joins two components) from a welding process” and “comparing a result (i.e. the characteristic value, as it depends on the measurement value that itself is characteristic of the vibration and based on the vibration and see Abstract “the measurement value is characteristic of a mechanical or electrical vibration behavior (i.e. the vibration signal) of a welding process to be tested” and “evaluating a measurement-value course”) of the evaluation to a reference value in order to test the quality of the weld (i.e. the comparison of the result of the evaluation is information indicative of the quality)”).
Klimas is silent to the language of
said computing device is connected to the at least one vibration pickup device, and
wherein the computing device is configured to cause a display device to display information.
Suter teaches
said computing device is connected to the at least one vibration pickup device (See Fig. 2B where the Channels 1-4 (which are connected to the microphones that detect vibration signals and convert them to electric measuring signals as they correspond to the measured vibration signals) are part of the Preamp 202 (i.e. the vibration pickup device), which is connected to the Laptop 210 (i.e. the computing device))
wherein the computing device is configured to cause a display device to display information (See Fig. 2A, where the laptop 210 (i.e. the computing device) is connected to a visual display 291 (i.e. a display device configured to display visual information))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas wherein said computing device is connected to the at least one vibration pickup device and wherein the computing device is configured to cause a display device to display information like in Suter in order to have a more compartmentalized architecture for detecting (via the vibration pickup device) and analyzing (via the computing device) the vibration signals and separately displaying in a displaying device.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimas and Suter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doyle (US 20130269441 A1).
With regards to Claim 7, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
performing a transformation on the processed at least one signal block (See Para[0055] “evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. performing a transformation)” and Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks that divide the electric measuring signal) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function”. Therefore, the window sections correspond to signal blocks of the original signal that were later Fourier transformed (i.e. processed at least one signal block).); and
transmitting the transformed at least one signal block to an Al module or a regression module (See Para[0049] “With a large amount of data over the temporal courses of the analyzed values of the vibration analysis (i.e. the analyzed values including the transformed at least one signal block) and the associated breakage forces, a classifier could thus be implemented by a neural network (i.e. an AI module, to which the transformed at least one signal block is transmitted to). Examiner notes that “or” was recited, indicating a choice, so Examiner chooses “AI module”.)”).
Klimas and Suter are silent to the language of
performing a Hilbert transformation on the signal.
Doyle teaches
performing a Hilbert transformation on the signal (See Para[0072] “the arrival times and amplitudes of the time-domain waveforms (i.e. the signal) were determined using a Hilbert transform”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas and Suter wherein performing a Hilbert transformation on the signal is done like in Doyle in order to have an alternative method of calculating the amplitudes of the signal.
With regards to Claim 8, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 1. Klimas further teaches
performing a transformation on the processed at least one signal block (See Para[0055] “evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. performing a transformation)” and Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks that divide the electric measuring signal) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function”. Therefore, the window sections correspond to signal blocks of the original signal that were later Fourier transformed (i.e. processed at least one signal block).); and
transmitting the transformed at least one signal block to an Al module or a regression module (See Para[0049] “With a large amount of data over the temporal courses of the analyzed values of the vibration analysis (i.e. the analyzed values including the transformed at least one signal block) and the associated breakage forces, a classifier could thus be implemented by a neural network (i.e. an AI module, to which the transformed at least one signal block is transmitted to). Examiner notes that “or” was recited, indicating a choice, so Examiner chooses “AI module”.)”).
Klimas and Suter are silent to the language of
performing a Cepstrum transformation on the signal.
Doyle teaches
performing a Cepstrum transformation on the signal (See Para[0072] “The cepstrum is the inverse Fourier transform of the log power spectrum, and has been used to provide the mean scatterer spacing from ultrasonic data (i.e. the signal)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas and Suter wherein performing a Cepstrum transformation on the signal is done like in Doyle in order to have a method of calculating important quantities of the signal, like the mean scatterer spacing (See Para[0074]).
With regards to Claim 9, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 8. Klimas further teaches
wherein one or more maximum values in transformed at least one signal block are detected (See Para[0018] “The use of a Fourier analysis can comprise the use of a short-term Fourier analysis, from which the temporal dependence of the amplitude (i.e. a maximum value), frequency, or other values can be determined” and Para[0018] “Individual window sections (i.e. signal blocks that divide the electric measuring signal) of the short-term Fourier analysis can refer back to a suitable window function (i.e. the signal blocks correspond to sections of the measurement signal that become Fourier transformed)” and Para[0055] “evaluate the recorded time-dependent measurement value (i.e. the electric measuring signal) by using a Fourier analysis (i.e. performing a Fourier transformation)”), and an analysis curve is created based on the transformed at least one signal block (See Para[0086] “comparison of the evaluated measurement values (i.e. the transformed at least one signal block) to the reference curves”. In other words, the set of evaluated measurement values constitute an analysis curve.).
With regards to Claim 10, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 9. Klimas in Para[0086] further teaches
the analysis curve and a first reference curve (See Para[0086] “comparison of the evaluated measurement values (i.e. the transformed at least one signal block) to the reference curves (i.e. containing a first reference curve)”. In other words, the set of evaluated measurement values constitute an analysis curve.).
Klimas in Para[0086] is silent to the language of
wherein a differential curve is created between the analysis curve and a first reference curve.
Klimas in Para[0087] teaches
wherein a differential curve is created between at least two curves (See Para[0087] “From the curve courses (i.e. at least two curves) of these good welds, a tolerance band (i.e. the differential curve) is defined that serves for the classification”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas in Para[0086] wherein a differential curve is created between at least two curves is used like in Para[0087] of Klimas in order to quantify a difference between the first reference curve and the analysis curve.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimas and Suter as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 20170108472 A1).
With regards to Claim 18, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 17. Klimas and Suter are silent to the language of
wherein the vibration pickup device is an optical microphone, a piezoelectric vibration pickup, or a structure-borne sound measuring device.
Fischer teaches
wherein the vibration pickup device is an optical microphone (See Abstract “a membrane-free and resonance-free optical microphone”), a piezoelectric vibration pickup, or a structure-borne sound measuring device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas and Suter wherein the vibration pickup device is an optical microphone, a piezoelectric vibration pickup, or a structure-borne sound measuring device like in Fischer in order to test objects with high precision (See Abstract of Fischer).
With regards to Claim 19, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 17. Klimas further teaches
reference data (See Para[0049] “If over a long period of time and system-wide the data (i.e. reference data) can also reliably differentiate between good and poor welds, the repeated experiment phase can be omitted”).
Klimas and Suter are silent to the language of
further comprising at least one control device, the at least one control device being connected to the at least one computing device and to the vibration pickup device for exchanging signal data and reference data.
Fischer teaches
further comprising at least one control device (See Abstract “The Invention refers to an airborne ultrasound testing system for a test object (3) containing an ultrasound generator (1;9) and an ultrasound receiver (2) and a control (i.e. the control device) to control both (i.e. controlling both necessitates sending and receiving signals from both to control them)”), the at least one control device being connected to the at least one computing device and to the vibration pickup device (See Fig. 1, where the ultrasound receiver 2 (i.e. the vibration pickup device) and the computing system 18 (i.e. the computing device) are connected to the control 12) for exchanging signal data and data (See Para[0042] “a control unit 12 consisting of hardware and software is used for the generation of the electric pulse signal (i.e. signal data), the analysis of the electric signal (i.e. data) as obtained by the receiver 2 (i.e. the control 12 is involved with sending an electric pulse signal and receiving the electric signal, therefore it is involved in exchanging signal data and data from the ultrasound receiver)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas and Suter wherein at least one control device, the at least one control device being connected to the at least one computing device and to the vibration pickup device for exchanging signal data and reference data like in Fischer in order to have a separate component for dealing with signal exchanging, yielding a more compartmentalized design.
With regards to Claim 20, Klimas and Suter teach the limitations of Claim 19. Klimas teaches
the computing device (See Para[0118] “The apparatuses and methods described in this application may be partially or fully implemented by a special purpose computer (i.e. the computing device)”).
Klimas and Suter are silent to the language of
wherein the control device provides command data in order to output the indicative information on the display device.
Fischer teaches
wherein the control device (See Abstract “The Invention refers to an airborne ultrasound testing system for a test object (3) containing an ultrasound generator (1;9) and an ultrasound receiver (2) and a control (i.e. the control device) to control both (i.e. controlling both necessitates sending and receiving signals from both to control them)”) provides command data in order to output the indicative information on the display device (See Para[0043] “ The control unit 12 is connected with an electrical connection 17 to a computer system 18 for data logging/recording, signal analysis, further processing and display (i.e. the command data is the instruction to display, and it causes to output the indicative information which is the information corresponding to the signal analysis) via monitor (i.e. the display device).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Klimas and Suter wherein the control device provides command data in order to output the indicative information on the display device like in Fischer in order to have a component for dealing with controlling the different components of the system to process and output analysis results, yielding a more compartmentalized design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights