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
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “10.0 umare acquired” this should be –10 um are acquired --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
Evaluator in claim 14 and 15. The specifications do not cite any particular structure. For examination purposes, “evaluator” will be interpreted as any structure capable of evaluating measured values.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-17 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.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 further recites the limitations an evaluator. The term “evaluator” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the evaluator evaluates the measured values.
A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of evaluation. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim,
Claims 16-17 are rejected due to dependency.
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 14-17 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.
Claim limitation “evaluator” invokes 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.
“Evaluator”. The structure of the evaluator is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “evaluator” will be interpreted as any structure capable of evaluating values.
Claims 16-17 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galbriath (US 20200198050 A1)
Claim 1. Galbriath discloses a method for monitoring a laser welding process for welding two workpieces by a welding laser beam (method of monitoring a laser welding process, abstract), which interacts with the workpieces in an interaction area to form a weld seam (system weld seams on the workpiece, par. 98, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
during the laser welding process, directing a measuring beam (imaging beam 122, Fig. 1) of an optical coherence tomograph (inline coherent imaging system, Fig. 1, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of an optical coherence tomograph includes an inline coherent imaging system) onto the interaction area, wherein the measuring beam at least partially penetrates the workpieces in the interaction area in a through weld of the workpieces (imaging beam 122 is directed into the keyhole weld, par. 37), and wherein the measuring beam penetrating the workpieces is incident on a reference element spaced apart from the workpieces (interferometry output is based on at least one other optical path length, e.g a reference arm, where the imaging beam may be backscattered from a subsurface structure such as a shelf under the keyhole, par. 41), acquiring measured values using the measuring beam (other optical path length from reference arm, par. 41),
defining a first measured value range corresponding to detection of a material of the workpieces by the measuring beam in the interaction area (interferometry output from measurements of the workpiece, par. 41),
defining a second measured value range corresponding to detection of the reference element by the measuring beam (interferometry output from measurements of the subsurface shelf, par. 41), and
evaluating the measured values acquired during the laser welding process (signal density is calculated from the interferometry output, par. 41) to determine a ratio of a number of measured values lying in the first measured value range and a number of measured values lying in the second measured value range (signal densities are calculated for multiple A-line scans at different depth bands, par. 51, where the broadest interpretation of “a ratio of a number of measured values” include determining the signal densities as a percentage of detected and undetected measurements within the depth band).
Claim 14. Galbriath discloses a monitoring device for monitoring a laser welding process for welding two workpieces by using a welding laser beam (apparatus for monitoring a laser welding process, abstract; butt welding two components, Fig. 5a), which interacts with the workpieces in an interaction area to form a weld seam (system weld seams on the workpiece, par. 98, Fig. 1), the monitoring device comprising:
an optical coherence tomograph (inline coherent imaging system, Fig. 1, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of an optical coherence tomograph includes an inline coherent imaging system) for providing a measuring beam for acquiring measured values during the laser welding process (imaging beam 122, Fig. 1), wherein the measuring beam is configured so that it is directed onto the interaction area during the laser welding process (imaging beam 122 is directed into the keyhole weld, par. 37) and at least partially penetrates the workpieces in the interaction area in a through weld of the workpieces (imaging beam 522 can penetrate partially or completely through the weld, Figs. 5a-d),
a reference element spaced apart from the workpieces, on which the measuring beam penetrating the workpieces is incident (imaging beam may be backscattered from a subsurface structure such as a shelf under the keyhole, par. 41), and
an evaluator (control system 130 receives the detected signal and calculates the signal density, par. 39) for evaluating the measured values acquired during the laser welding process, wherein the evaluator is configured to determine a ratio of a number of measured values lying in a first measured value range (signal density measurement corresponding to the keyhole shoulder depth, par. 51) and a number of measured values lying in a second measured value range (signal density measurement corresponding to a subsurface shelf, par. 58), wherein the first measured value range corresponds to a detection of a material of the workpieces by the measuring beam in the interaction area (signal density measurement corresponding to the keyhole shoulder depth, par. 51; where the broadest interpretation of “a ratio of a number of measured values” include determining the signal densities as a percentage of detected and undetected measurements within the depth band), and the second measured value range corresponds to a detection of the reference element by the measuring beam (signal density measurement corresponding to a subsurface shelf, par. 58).
Claim 4. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising, based on the ratio of the number of measured values lying in the first measured value range and the number of measured values lying in the second measured value range, assessing a spatial density of the through weld of the weld seam (based on the signal density, an opening or closing vapor channel can be detected, par. 33, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of “assessing a spatial density of the through weld” includes monitoring vapor channels within the weld which affect the density of the weld).
Claim 5. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising, based on the ratio of the number of measured values lying in the first measured value range and the number of measured values lying in the second measured value range, assessing a fluid-tightness of the weld seam (based on the signal density, an opening or closing vapor channel can be detected, par. 33, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of “assessing a fluid-tightness” includes monitoring vapor channels within the weld which can affect the density and if fluids can pass through the weld).
Claim 6. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising, based on the ratio of the number of measured values lying in the first measured value range and the number of measured values lying in the second measured value range, assessing an opening status of a vapor capillary formed during the laser welding process (based on the signal density, an opening or closing vapor channel can be detected, par. 33).
Claim 9. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measuring beam is oriented parallel and/or coaxial to the welding laser beam (imaging beam 122 is coaxial to the process beam 112, Fig. 1).
Claim 10. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measuring beam and the welding laser beam are incident on a first side of a combination of the workpieces to be welded (beams are directed to a top surface of two workpieces at a butt joint, Figs. 5).
Claim 11. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the measuring beam exits from a second side of the combination of the workpieces (beam 522 passes through bottom side of the butt weld, Fig. 5b) to be welded in the through weld of the workpieces, wherein the second side is spaced apart from the first side in a beam propagation direction of the measuring beam (bottom side of the butt weld is spaced apart from the top side of the butt weld, Fig. 5B).
Claim 12. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measuring beam penetrating the workpieces in the through weld is reflected on the reference element, and the reflected measuring beam is detected by the optical coherence tomograph (imaging beam 522 passes through the butt weld and reflects off of the shelf 506, par. 57, Fig. 5c).
Claim 13. Galbriath discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, if no through weld (partial penetration, Fig. 5D) and/or no through weld with open vapor capillary is present, the measuring beam is reflected in the interaction area on the material of at least one of the workpieces, and the reflected measuring beam is detected by the optical coherence tomograph (imaging beam 522 is reflected from the bottom 509 of the partially penetrated keyhole 508, par. 57, Fig. 5d, wherein the reflected imaging beam is detected by the ICI, par. 41).
Claim 16. Galbriath discloses a laser welding device (material processing system, Fig. 1) for carrying out a laser welding process for welding two workpieces by using a welding laser beam (butt weld of two components, Figs. 5 ), which interacts with the workpieces in an interaction area to form a weld seam (weld region 503, Fig. 5B), the laser welding device comprising a monitoring device (monitoring device, title) as claimed in claim 14.
Claim 17. Galbriath discloses the laser welding device as claimed in claim 16, further comprising a holding device, on which the workpieces are arranged to carry out the laser welding process, wherein the reference element is arranged and/or formed on the holding device (the surface of the free space may be a shelf or surface of clamping or fixturing, par. 95, where it is understood by the examiner that the workpiece is resting on a surface or being clamped).
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbriath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brandner (DE 102020002826 A1).
Claim 2. Galbriath does not disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising determining a variance of the measured values lying in the first measured value range, and a variance of the measured values lying in the second measured value range.
Brandner discloses a method of monitoring a laser welding process using optical coherence tomography wherein for signal evaluation variance is performed on the measured data to infer weld quality (par. 7).
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 Galbriath to incorporate the teachings of Brandner and calculate variance for the different measured values. Doing so would have the benefit of inferring weld quality (par. 7, Brandner).
Galbriath discloses detecting if a vapor capillary is opened or closed (par. 33).
It would have been obvious to try to see if variance of the measured values can be used to detect if the vapor capillary is opened or closed.
Claim 15. Galbriath does not disclose the monitoring device as claimed in claim 14, wherein the evaluator is further configured to determine a variance of measured values lying in the first measured value range, and a variance of measured values lying in the second measured value range.
Brandner discloses a method of monitoring a laser welding process using optical coherence tomography wherein for signal evaluation variance is performed on the measured data to infer weld quality (par. 7).
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 Galbriath to incorporate the teachings of Brandner and calculate variance for the different measured values. Doing so would have the benefit of inferring weld quality (par. 7, Brandner).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbriath in view of Brandner as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of
Bautze, Thibault, and Markus Kogel‐Hollacher. "Keyhole depth is just a distance: The IDM sensor improves laser welding processes." Laser Technik Journal 11.4 (2014): 39-43.
Claim 7. Galbriath in view of Brandner does not disclose the method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising, based on the variance of the measured values lying in the first measured value range and the variance of the measured values lying in the second measured value range, assessing a spatial density of the through weld of the weld seam, and/or a fluid-tightness of the weld seam, and/or an opening status of a vapor capillary formed during the laser welding process.
Bautze discloses monitoring laser welding with optical coherence tomography (page 42) wherein a variance analysis of the penetration depth allows the detection of unstable processes or discontinuities of the keyhole-generation (page 42).
Galbriath discloses the signal densities can be used measure if a vapor capillary is open or closed (par. 33).
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 Galbriath in view of Brandner to incorporate the teachings of Bautze and use variance to determine if a vapor capillary is opened. Applying the known variance technique to determine if a vapor capillary is opened would have been routine since Galbriath discloses determining if a vapor capillary is open or closed and Bautze discloses that variance can be used to detect unstable processes and discontinuities during keyhole generation.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbriath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Webster (US 20180178320 A1).
Claim 3. Galbriath does not disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measured values at a spatial distance of at most 10.0 µmare acquired by using the measuring beam of the optical coherence tomograph during the laser welding process.
Webster discloses using optical coherence tomography in monitoring a laser weld wherein the imaging beam takes reading of the sample at 60 mm/s at 100 kHz (par. 185), which results in a measured spatial distance of 0.6 um.
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 Galbriath to incorporate the teachings of Webster and set the spatial distance to less than 10 um. Webster demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to set the scanning parameters based on what features of the keyhole weld they want to observe.
Claim 8. Galbriath does not disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measured values are acquired in a defined time interval, wherein the defined time interval is at least 1 ms and at most 50 ms ().
Webster discloses using optical coherence tomography in monitoring a laser weld wherein the time interval of the measurements are taken at 1 kHz or 1 ms (par. 61)
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 Galbriath to incorporate the teachings of Brandner and set the time interval to 1 ms. Webster demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to set the scanning parameters based on what features of the keyhole weld they want to observe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights