Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pfitzner is used to show the amended claim limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “entire length of a cut”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The specification describes the entire interaction region, but does not state the interaction region is the entire length of a cut.
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) 1-4, 7-8, 11-15, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse et al (US 2014/0346150) in view of Pfitzner et al (US 2014/0175071).
Regarding claim 1, Hesse discloses, Hesse discloses, regarding claim 1, a method for identifying at least one disruption during a machining process (see title and abstract, detecting an incomplete cutting action during cutting a workpiece), the method comprising: machining a workpiece while moving a machining tool and the workpiece relative to one another (a workpiece 2 is machined or cut by a machining tool such as a laser 1, See Paragraph [0038]); recording an image of a region on the workpiece to be monitored, the region to be monitored being an interaction region of the machining tool with the workpiece; (images of the cutting process are recored. See Paragraphs [0017]-[0020])
evaluating the image of the region to be monitored for identifying the at least one disruption during the machining process (the image is evaluated for identifying whether or not a cut is incomplete. See Paragraph [0017], [0025]) by detecting a presence or a lack of a local intensity drop in an intensity profile within the interaction region along an advancement direction of the machining process. (The image evaluator detects the pooled slag, which is an indication of a disruption but looking for a drop in local intensity in the image. See Claim 17, Paragraphs [0051]-[0052])
Hesse fails to disclose, concluding that a disruption of the machining process has occurred when the lack of a local intensity drop in the intensity profile is detected within the interaction region.
However, Pfitzner discloses, regarding claims 1 and 3, identifying a disruption in a machining process (Detecting defects, See Abstract), by determining if the intensity of a minimum intensity profile disappears, indicating a disruption. (See Paragraph [0030]) If the intensity disappears it would drop.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to adapt Hesse in view of Pfitzner to provide concluding that a disruption of the machining process has occurred when the lack of a local intensity drop in the intensity profile is detected within the interaction region for improving the quality of the weld seam.
Hesse also discloses, regarding claim 2, the process is a cutting process and the machining tool is a laser head. (See Abstract) Regarding claims 3 and 7, the process detects an incomplete cutting action, indicated by pooled slag which is detected by an intensity minimum. (See Abstracts and Paragraph [0051]-[0052]) Regarding claim 4, the disruption may also be detected by a change in geometry of the interaction region. (See Paragraph [0015]) Regarding claim 8, a repeated detection of intensity minimums may be detected by the evaluation device. (See Paragraph [0054])
Regarding claim 12, A machining apparatus, comprising: a machining tool for machining a workpiece (see title and abstract, detecting an incomplete cutting action during cutting a workpiece);
a movement device for moving the machining tool and the workpiece relative to one another; (The device 1 would contain a movement device as the laser nozzle is moved along the workpiece 2 in a machining direction. See Paragraph [0044]) an image capturing device for recording an image of a region on the workpiece to be monitored, the region to be monitored including an interaction region of the machining tool with the workpiece; (images of the cutting process are captured by camera 10 and recorded. See Paragraphs [0017]-[0020], [0040]) and an evaluation device configured to identify at least one disruption of the machining process based on an evaluation of the image of the region to be monitored, (the image is evaluated, by evaluation device 18, for identifying whether or not a cut is incomplete. See Paragraph [0017], [0025]) said evaluation device being configured to identify the disruption by detecting, during the evaluation of the image, a presence or a lack of a local intensity drop in an intensity profile within the interaction region in an advancement direction of the machining process. (The image evaluator detects the pooled slag, which is an indication of a disruption but looking for a drop in local intensity in the image. See Claim 17, Paragraphs [0051]-[0052])
Hesse fails to disclose, concluding that a disruption of the machining process has occurred when the lack of a local intensity drop in the intensity profile is detected within the interaction region.
However, Pfitzner discloses identifying a disruption in a machining process (Detecting defects, See Abstract), but determining if the intensity of a minimum intensity profile disappears, indicating a disruption. (See Paragraph [0030])
Regarding claim 13, the process is a cutting process and the machining tool is a laser head. (See Abstract) Regarding claims 14 and 18, the process detects an incomplete cutting action, indicated by pooled slag which is detected by an intensity minimum. (See Abstracts and Paragraph [0051]-[0052]) Regarding claim 15, the disruption may also be detected by a change in geometry of the interaction region. (See Paragraph [0015])
Regarding claim 17 an incomplete cutting action is detected when an intensity drops below a set intensity minimum. (See Paragraph [0014], The drops of slag may produce an intensity minimum in the thermal image of the interaction region so that, when such an intensity minimum is present, the existence of drops of slag can be determined. A measured value for the intensity of the thermal radiation in the region of the intensity minimum approximately corresponds in this case to the value or is slightly below the value of the intensity of the thermal radiation which is measured in the region to be monitored outside the interaction region.)
Regarding claim 11, the claim states “a type of disruption” but fails to set forth what is included in “a type” or if there are multiple types of disruptions being claimed. The disruption is either determined or not determined. The evaluation unit evaluates multiple images as shown in Figs 3a and 3c. The unit determines a burr as in 3b or an incomplete cutting action in Fig 3c.
Claim(s) 5-6, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse et al (US 2014/0346150) in view of Pfitzner et al (US 2014/0175071) and Regaard et al (US 2019/0375051).
The teachings of Hesse have been discussed above. Hesse fails to disclose, regarding claims 5 and 16, wherein the at least one geometric feature of the interaction region is a length of the interaction region in the advancement direction; regarding claims 6 and 17, identifying an incomplete cutting action during the cutting if a characteristic that depends on the length of the interaction region in the advancement direction exceeds a threshold value and if the lack of the local intensity drop is detected within the interaction region.
Regaard discloses measuring an interaction region during a cutting operation in order to determine a defect in the cut. The length of the interaction region of the cut is measured and the intensity value is determined. The intensity value can be the overall intensity of the recorded image; however, in general only a spatially restricted portion of the recorded image in the region of the cutting front is evaluated for the purposes of determining the intensity value, i.e., the overall intensity in the spatially restricted portion is determined. In particular, it is possible to register or detect a critical value for the cutting front angle being exceeded by comparing this intensity value with an intensity reference value which, for example, corresponds to the overall intensity of a portion of the recorded image lying away from the cutting front. (See Paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0032])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Hesse in view of Regaard to provide the length of the interaction region in the advancement direction and identifying an incomplete cutting action during the cutting if a characteristic that depends on the length of the interaction region in the advancement direction exceeds a threshold value and if the lack of the local intensity drop is detected within the interaction region for determining a loss of the cut.
Claim(s) 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse et al (US 2014/0346150) in view of Pfitzner et al (US 2014/0175071) and Bocksrocker et al (DE 10 2016 208 264).
The teachings of Hesse have been discussed above. Hesse fails to disclose determining a degree of the position-dependent disruption on a basis of the intensity profile, determining a degree of a contamination of the supporting bar on a basis of a gradient of the intensity profile.
Bocksrocker discloses determining a degree of intensity, by measuring the intensity of the gradient and looking for a sudden increase in the intensity. It would have been obvious to adapt Hesse in view of Bocksrocker to provide determining a degree of the position-dependent disruption on a basis of the intensity profile, determining a degree of a contamination of the supporting bar on a basis of a gradient of the intensity profile as Bocksrocker discloses these being alternative methods of measuring the quality of the cut.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights