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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 10 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application DE10 2022 129 218.5 filed on 11/04/2022.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recites the limitation “evaluation unit” with structure in specification in paragraph [0041], processor. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lonsberry (US20220016776).
Regarding claim 1 Lonsberry teaches a machining system comprising: ([0041] disclosing the robot machining system).
A robot comprising a robot control system, the robot control system configured to generate control signals for robot-assisted movement of the machining head ([0041]-[0042], fig. 3 disclosing a robot for assisting movement of the machining head).
a measuring unit for performing measurement on a workpiece which are used to prepare, monitor and/or asses welding performed by the machining head, comprising: a measurement sensor system configured to perform measurements on the workpiece and acquire measurement data; ([0054], [0061]-[0070] disclosing the sensors to determine three dimensional image data and cloud data for the workpiece and classify seams where the robot needs to weld).
an evaluation unit configured to determine workpiece-specific position information from acquired measurement data, on the basis of which real-time position control for the machining head can be performed ([0054], [0061]-[0070] disclosing the control unit determining the seams on the workpieces where the weld needs to be done based on the 3d cloud data and sends instruction to the robot to perform the work);
and an interface configured to transmit the workpiece-specific position information determined by the evaluation unit to the robot control system ([0054], [0069] disclosing sending the instruction to the robot so as to weld the seams, wherein the robot program is adjusted based on the measurements); wherein the robot control system is configured to perform position control for the machining head based on the position information ([0054], [0061]-[0070] disclosing the adjustment of the robot head based on the determined position information of the seam and the adjusted program of the robot based on that).
Regarding claim 2, Lonsberry teaches the machining system of claim 1, wherein the position information includes a current position of an edge ([0054], [0061]-[0067] disclosing the position information including the position of a seam).
Regarding claim 3, Lonsberry teaches device of claim 1, wherein the measuring unit is configured to perform at least one measurement at a predeterminable measuring position, and wherein the robot control system is configured to define the measuring position ([0053]-[0054], [0061]-[0070] disclosing the sensors are controlled by the robotic control system to take measurements around the tip of the robotic machining head).
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lonsberry (US20220016776) in view of Strebel (US20190143458).
Regarding claim 4, Lonsberry teaches the machining system of claim 3. Lonsberry does not teach wherein the robot control system is configured to adjust a leading beam and/or trailing beam of the measuring position relative to a current machining position.
Strebel teaches wherein the robot control system is configured to adjust a leading beam and/or trailing beam of the measuring position relative to a current machining position (at least [0044] disclosing the measuring position is adjusted to be a circular positions instead of lines in the trailing and the leading positions from the current machining position, the circular motion has different positions than the line positions).
The combination/substitution of Strebel adjustment of a leading or trailing beam is obvious yielding predictable results in order to effectively detect seams in front and behind the laser.
Regarding claim 5, Lonsberry teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the robot control system is configured to dynamically adjust the leading beam and/or the trailing beam during machining along a weld seam having an initial portion and an end portion such that the leading beam increases along the initial portion and/or that the trailing beam decreases along the end portion
Strebel further teaches wherein the robot control system is configured to dynamically adjust the leading beam and/or the trailing beam during machining along a weld seam having an initial portion and an end portion such that the leading beam increases along the initial portion and/or that the trailing beam decreases along the end portion (at least [0044]-[0047] disclosing the measuring position is adjusted to be a circular positions instead of lines in the trailing and the leading positions from the current machining position, the circular motion has different positions than the line positions, as shown in figure 2 where the circular points on the trailing beam decrease at some portions from the line positions).
The combination/substitution of Strebel adjustment of adjusting a leading or trailing beam is obvious yielding predictable results in order to effectively detect seams in front and behind the laser, the method is advantageously applied to different geometry of seam and adjusted according to the geometry for precise tracking of a seam.
Regarding claim 6, Lonsberry teaches the machining system of claim 3,
Strebel further teach wherein the measuring unit is configured to perform measurements at several measuring positions lying on a geometric measurement figure, in particular at least one measurement line ([0044]-[0047] disclosing the measurements along a line); and wherein the robot control system is configured to specify a position and/or orientation and/or scanning density of the geometric measurement figure ([0044]-[0047] disclosing the position of the line is determined to be in front or back of the processing position).
The combination/substitution of Strebel perfomring several measurement positions on geometric measurement figure is obvious yielding predictable results in order to effectively detect seams in front and behind the laser, the method is advantageously applied to different geometry of seam and adjusted according to the geometry for precise tracking of a seam.
Regarding claim 7, Strebel teaches the machining system of claim 1, wherein the measuring unit may comprise an optical coherence tomograph including a sample beam source 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.
Strebel teaches wherein the measuring unit may comprise an optical coherence tomograph including a sample beam source 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 (at least [0030] disclosing the laser machining beam and the measuring beam can be separated , [0035] disclosing optical coherence tomograph and at least [0044]-[0047] disclosing independent measuring positions).
The combination/substitution of Strebel wherein the measuring unit may comprise an optical coherence tomograph including a sample beam source 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, is obvious yielding predictable results for determining the seams of a workpiece as taught by Strebel [0021]. the method is advantageously applied to different geometry of seam and adjusted according to the geometry for precise tracking of a seam and to determine
Regarding claim 10, Lonsberry teaches a method for machining a workpiece, with the machining system of claim 1, comprising:
generate control signals for robot-assisted movement of the machining head by means of a robot control system ([0054]-[0070] disclosing the generated robotic path of the welding head by the controller).
performing welding operation on the workpiece by means of the machining head in accordance with the generated control signals ([0054]-[0070] disclosing the generated robotic head movement by the controller to weld the machine
performing measurements on the workpiece and acquire measurement data; ([0054]-[0070] disclosing the measurements obtained near the welding head as the robot performs welding)
determining workpiece-specific position information from acquired measurement data, on the basis of which real-time position control for the machining head can be performed ([0054]-[0070] disclosing the sensors to determine the adjusted positions of the seams to control the robot head to adjust the path by using the robot that controls the movement path of the weld head).
transmitting the workpiece-specific position information determined by the evaluation unit to the robot control system ([0054]-[0070] disclosing the sensors to determine the adjusted positions of the seams to control the robot head to adjust the path by using the robot that controls the movement path of the weld head, the controller transmits the motion signals to the robot);
performing position control for the machining head based on the position information ([0054]-[0070] disclosing the sensors to determine the adjusted positions of the seams to control the robot head to adjust the path by using the robot that controls the movement path of the weld head, the controller transmits the motion signals to the robot and the robot is controlled to weld based on the new path and the robot head is adjusted);
Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but are moot since the rejection relies on new prior art for the control of the machine head via a robot, specifically, Lonsberry cited in the rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20180369944 disclosing controlling head position based on scanning.
US20210187657 disclosing the tilting of the head based on scanning.
US20200171599 discloses detecting a gap to be welded by OCT.
US20150338210 discloses measuring welds using OCT.
US20250058407 disclosing measuring welds post welding using measuring device.
US20220324054 disclosing measuring welding spots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B