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 .
First Interpretation of Winzinger
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10-11, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winzinger (WO2015/193136).
Re Claim 1, Winzinger discloses a strapping device comprising:
a strapping head (strapping head 11 comprising welding head 1, Fig. 1) configured to carry out a sealing cycle to form a strap joint by welding two overlapping portions of strap together (“a heated welding head 1, which is brought between the overlapping strapping band 5 or between the end regions 22 and 23 for melting, one or more punches 3, which can press the strapping band 5 against the heated welding head 1 during the melting of the strapping band 5, and, after the heated welding head 1 has been removed from between the overlapping strapping band 5, press this against a pressure plate 2, thereby securing the strapping band 5 by welding its overlapping end regions 22 and 23” [0136]]) based at least in part on a weld parameter (“In a further process step, the end areas of the respective strapping band are subjected to temperature via the heated welding head for a specific dwell time and for the purpose of heating them” [0056]);
a weld imager (“camera” [0090]) configured to image the strap joint and generate image data based on the imaged strap joint (“Furthermore, the force required to break the respective material bond can be indirectly detected and/or determined with the aid of one or more cameras. The strength and/or volume of a given material bond can be detected and/or determined using one or more cameras and passed on or transmitted as a physical parameter to the control device.” [0090]); and
one or more controllers (control device 80) configured to:
receive the image data (“whereby the force required to break the material bond is sensorially detected and/or measured and transmitted as a physical parameter to the is transferred to a computer-aided control system” [0086-0087], the physical parameter is the image data);
determine, based on the image data, whether a weld-adjustment condition is met (“if the bond is too strong, the temperature level of the welding head could be reduced and/or the dwell time during which the welding head is in contact with the end sections of strapping bands could be increased” [0088]); and
responsive to determining that the weld-adjustment condition is met, automatically adjust the weld parameter for a later sealing cycle (“if the bond is too strong, the temperature level of the welding head could be reduced and/or the dwell time during which the welding head is in contact with the end sections of strapping bands could be increased” [0088]).
Re Claim 6, Winzinger discloses the strapping device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine that the weld-adjustment condition is met when the strap joint is under-welded (“If a weld point 13 tears due to insufficient test force, the heat output applied to the band 5 (the duration of heating and/or the heat applied to the band 5 per (Time unit) increased” [0207]-[0208]).
Re Claim 8, Winzinger discloses the strapping device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine that the weld-adjustment condition is met when the strap joint is over-welded (“Since excessive heat input to belt 5 can also have the opposite effect, it can... It may be necessary to conduct an additional camera inspection. Normally, however, one does not operate within these limits. If 10 bands 5 made of a new material are tested on a device, a test operation can be implemented in the control unit 80, which finds out exactly the limit up to which heat input and/or pressure force of the punch 3 a weld joint 13 becomes stronger and from which heat input and/or pressure force a weld joint 13 becomes weaker again.” [0209]-[0210]).
Re Claim 10, Winzinger discloses the strapping device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the weld parameter is weld time (“the duration of heating” [0207]), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to: determine that the weld-adjustment condition is met when the strap joint is under-welded or over-welded (“If 10 bands 5 made of a new material are tested on a device, a test operation can be implemented in the control unit 80, which finds out exactly the limit up to which heat input and/or pressure force of the punch 3 a weld joint 13 becomes stronger and from which heat input and/or pressure force a weld joint 13 becomes weaker again” [0210]); responsive to determining that the strap joint is under-welded, automatically adjust the weld parameter by increasing the weld time (“If a weld point 13 tears due to insufficient test force, the heat output applied to the band 5 (the duration of heating and/or the heat applied to the band 5 per (Time unit) increased” [0207]-[0208]); and responsive to determining that the strap joint is over-welded, automatically adjust the weld parameter by decreasing the weld time (“The time required for surface contact can be shortened.” [0089] and “Since excessive heat input to belt 5 can also have the opposite effect, it can... It may be necessary to conduct an additional camera inspection. Normally, however, one does not operate within these limits. If 10 bands 5 made of a new material are tested on a device, a test operation can be implemented in the control unit 80, which finds out exactly the limit up to which heat input and/or pressure force of the punch 3 a weld joint 13 becomes stronger and from which heat input and/or pressure force a weld joint 13 becomes weaker again.” [0209]-[0210]).
Re Claim 11, Winzinger discloses a method of operating a strapping device, the method comprising: carrying out a sealing cycle to form a strap joint by welding two overlapping portions of strap together based at least in part on a weld parameter (“After a certain dwell time, the surface contact between the welding head 1 and the opposing end regions 22 and 23 of the strapping band 5 is lifted, whereby the welding head 1 is moved into a retraction position. Immediately thereafter, the punch 3 moves towards the pressure plate 2 to clamp the strapping band 5 or the heated end areas 22 and 23 of the strapping band 5 between punch 3 and pressure plate 2, thereby causing the end areas 22 and 23 to weld together. The dwell time is specified via the control unit 80, and the movement of the stamp 3 is also initiated via the control unit 80.” [0156]-[0157]); after the strap joint has been formed (“The strength and/or volume of a given material bond can be detected and/or determined using one or more cameras and passed on or transmitted as a physical parameter to the control device” [0090]), receiving from a weld imager image data based on an image of the strap joint (“The strength and/or volume of a given material bond can be detected and/or determined using one or more cameras and passed on or transmitted as a physical parameter to the control device” [0090]); determining, based on the image data, whether a weld-adjustment condition is met (control device decides if bond is too strong or too weak); and responsive to determining that the weld-adjustment condition is met, automatically adjusting the weld parameter for a later sealing cycle (“The dwell time of the temperature exposure and/or the force of the stamp's contact with the pressure plate and/or the temperature level of the welding head can be determined – as previously described – by means of the control device and the data captured by the one or more cameras” [0090]).
Re Claim 16, Winzinger discloses the method of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), which comprises determining that the weld-adjustment condition is met when the strap joint is under-welded (“If a weld point 13 tears due to insufficient test force, the heat output applied to the band 5 (the duration of heating and/or the heat applied to the band 5 per (Time unit) increased” [0207]-[0208]).
Re Claim 18, Winzinger discloses the method of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), which comprises determining that the weld-adjustment condition is met when the strap joint is over-welded (“Since excessive heat input to belt 5 can also have the opposite effect, it can... It may be necessary to conduct an additional camera inspection. Normally, however, one does not operate within these limits. If 10 bands 5 made of a new material are tested on a device, a test operation can be implemented in the control unit 80, which finds out exactly the limit up to which heat input and/or pressure force of the punch 3 a weld joint 13 becomes stronger and from which heat input and/or pressure force a weld joint 13 becomes weaker again.” [0209]-[0210]).
Re Claim 20, Winzinger discloses the method of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the weld parameter is weld time (“the duration of heating” [0207]), and which comprises determining that the weld-adjustment condition is met when the strap joint is under-welded or over-welded (“If 10 bands 5 made of a new material are tested on a device, a test operation can be implemented in the control unit 80, which finds out exactly the limit up to which heat input and/or pressure force of the punch 3 a weld joint 13 becomes stronger and from which heat input and/or pressure force a weld joint 13 becomes weaker again” [0210]), responsive to determining that the strap joint is under-welded, automatically adjusting the weld parameter by increasing the weld time (“If a weld point 13 tears due to insufficient test force, the heat output applied to the band 5 (the duration of heating and/or the heat applied to the band 5 per (Time unit) increased” [0207]-[0208]);, and responsive to determining that the strap joint is over-welded, automatically adjusting the weld parameter by decreasing the weld time (“The time required for surface contact can be shortened.” [0089] and “Since excessive heat input to belt 5 can also have the opposite effect, it can... It may be necessary to conduct an additional camera inspection. Normally, however, one does not operate within these limits. If 10 bands 5 made of a new material are tested on a device, a test operation can be implemented in the control unit 80, which finds out exactly the limit up to which heat input and/or pressure force of the punch 3 a weld joint 13 becomes stronger and from which heat input and/or pressure force a weld joint 13 becomes weaker again.” [0209]-[0210]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzinger (WO2015/193136) in view of Murray Jr et al. (US2005/0169346), hereinafter referred to as Murray.
Re Claim 2, Winzinger discloses the strapping device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the one or more controllers are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a camera capable of performing a control function by converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the camera indirectly detects the weld strength. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a controller capable of measuring the weld width as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted. Examiner notes that this modification would require the camera to transmit the full image to the controller instead of merely the physical parameters, but this is also taught by Murray (“While on, the infrared camera 70 continuously obtains images and provides the images to the image controller 74” [0029]).
Re Claim 4, Winzinger, in view of Murray, disclose the strapping device of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the one or more controllers comprise a single controller (image analysis device 20, modifed in rejection to claim 2 to have the capability of image controller 74 of Murray) configured to determine the melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (see rejection to claim 2).
Re Claim 5, Winzinger, in view of Murray, disclose the strapping device of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met by determining whether the melted area of the strap joint is within a designated range of melted areas (Murray, “The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range.” [0034]).
Re Claim 7, Winzinger discloses the strapping device of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), but fails to disclose that the one or more controllers are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and to determine that the strap joint is under-welded when the melted area of the strap joint is below a designated range of melted areas.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine that the strap joint is under-welded when the melted area of the strap joint is below a designated range of melted areas (“Since each received image includes the entire weld pool 60, the image controller 74 analyzes the width of the weld pool 60 along the entire path of the weld pool. Again, the image controller 74 provides a feedback signal to the weld controller 74 when a determination is made that the width of a portion of the weld pool 60 is outside of the threshold width range. The weld controller 46 is responsive to the feedback signal to adjust the welding process to bring the width of the portion back into the threshold width range.” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a camera capable of performing a control function by converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the camera indirectly detects the weld strength. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a controller capable of measuring the weld width as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted and provide the measures identified in Winzinger to correct the underwelding . Examiner notes that this modification would require the camera to transmit the full image to the controller instead of merely the physical parameters, but this is also taught by Murray (“While on, the infrared camera 70 continuously obtains images and provides the images to the image controller 74” [0029]).
Re Claim 9, Winzinger discloses the strapping device of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), but fails to discloses that the one or more controllers are configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and to determine that the strap joint is over-welded when the melted area of the strap joint is above a designated range of melted areas.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“the image controller 74 provides a feedback signal to the weld controller 74 when a determination is made that the width of a portion of the weld pool 60 is outside of the threshold width range. The weld controller 46 is responsive to the feedback signal to adjust the welding process to bring the width of the portion back into the threshold width range” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a camera capable of performing a control function by converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the camera indirectly detects the weld strength. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a controller capable of measuring the weld width as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted and provide the measures identified in Winzinger to correct the overwelding. Examiner notes that this modification would require the camera to transmit the full image to the controller instead of merely the physical parameters, but this is also taught by Murray (“While on, the infrared camera 70 continuously obtains images and provides the images to the image controller 74” [0029]).
Re Claim 12, Winzinger discloses the method of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), but fails to disclose determining a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and determining whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a method with camera capable of performing a control function by converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the method determines the weld strength based on the camera images. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the weld width base on the image as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted and determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met. Examiner notes that this modification would require the camera to transmit the full image to the controller instead of merely the physical parameters, but this is also taught by Murray (“While on, the infrared camera 70 continuously obtains images and provides the images to the image controller 74” [0029]).
Re Claim 14, Winzinger in view of Murray, discloses the method of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), which comprises causing a single controller (image analysis device 20, modifed in rejection to claim 2 to have the capability of image controller 74 of Murray) to determine the melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (see rejection to claim 12).
Re Claim 15, Winzinger in view of Murray, discloses the method of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein determining whether the weld-adjustment condition is met comprises determining whether the melted area of the strap joint is within a designated range of melted areas (Murray, “The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range.” [0034]).
Re Claim 17, Winzinger discloses the method of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), but fails to disclose determining a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and determining that the strap joint is under-welded when the melted area of the strap joint is below a designated range of melted areas.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a method with camera capable of performing a control function by converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the method determines the weld strength based on the camera images. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the weld width base on the image as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted and and determine whether the weld is underwelded so the corrective measures as identified in Winzinger can be provided. Examiner notes that this modification would require the camera to transmit the full image to the controller instead of merely the physical parameters, but this is also taught by Murray (“While on, the infrared camera 70 continuously obtains images and provides the images to the image controller 74” [0029]).
Re Claim 19, Winzinger discloses the method of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), but fails to disclose determining a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and determining that the strap joint is over-welded when the melted area of the strap joint is above a designated range of melted areas.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a method with camera capable of performing a control function by converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the method determines the weld strength based on the camera images. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the weld width base on the image as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted and determine whether the weld is overwelded so the corrective measures as identified in Winzinger can be provided. Examiner notes that this modification would require the camera to transmit the full image to the controller instead of merely the physical parameters, but this is also taught by Murray (“While on, the infrared camera 70 continuously obtains images and provides the images to the image controller 74” [0029]).
Second Interpretation of Winzinger
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10-11, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winzinger (WO2015/193136).
Re Claim 1, Winzinger discloses a strapping device comprising:
a strapping head (strapping head 11 comprising welding head 1, Fig. 1) configured to carry out a sealing cycle to form a strap joint by welding two overlapping portions of strap together (“a heated welding head 1, which is brought between the overlapping strapping band 5 or between the end regions 22 and 23 for melting, one or more punches 3, which can press the strapping band 5 against the heated welding head 1 during the melting of the strapping band 5, and, after the heated welding head 1 has been removed from between the overlapping strapping band 5, press this against a pressure plate 2, thereby securing the strapping band 5 by welding its overlapping end regions 22 and 23” [0136]]) based at least in part on a weld parameter (“In a further process step, the end areas of the respective strapping band are subjected to temperature via the heated welding head for a specific dwell time and for the purpose of heating them” [0056]);
a weld imager (subsystem of “camera” that captures the images [0090]; Examiner interprets “camera” as having two sub-systems: a camera subsystem that captures the image and a control subsystem that converts the image into a physical parameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the act of converting an image into a parameter, which the “camera” of Winzinger is capable of doing, requires a control subsystem) configured to image the strap joint and generate image data based on the imaged strap joint (camera subsystem that captures the image is capable of capturing and generating images) and
one or more controllers (control subsystem and control device 80) configured to:
receive the image data (control subsystem receives image from camera subsystem);
determine, based on the image data, whether a weld-adjustment condition is met (control subsystem converts image into a physical parameter which control device 80 uses to determine bond strength, “In various embodiments of the inventive method, it is also conceivable that a large number of sensory measurements of actual physical parameters are carried out at certain time intervals and that, in the event of one or more deviations of the respective one or more measured actual physical parameters from target parameters stored in the control device, the time interval between several successive sensory measurements is shortened.” [0084]); and
responsive to determining that the weld-adjustment condition is met, automatically adjust the weld parameter for a later sealing cycle (“if the bond is too strong, the temperature level of the welding head could be reduced and/or the dwell time during which the welding head is in contact with the end sections of strapping bands could be increased” [0088]).
Re Claim 11, Winzinger discloses a method of operating a strapping device, the method comprising:
carrying out a sealing cycle to form a strap joint by welding two overlapping portions of strap together based at least in part on a weld parameter (“After a certain dwell time, the surface contact between the welding head 1 and the opposing end regions 22 and 23 of the strapping band 5 is lifted, whereby the welding head 1 is moved into a retraction position. Immediately thereafter, the punch 3 moves towards the pressure plate 2 to clamp the strapping band 5 or the heated end areas 22 and 23 of the strapping band 5 between punch 3 and pressure plate 2, thereby causing the end areas 22 and 23 to weld together. 03-09-2026 - Page 42 The dwell time is specified via the control unit 80, and the movement of the stamp 3 is also initiated via the control unit 80.” [0156]-[0157]);
after the strap joint has been formed (“The strength and/or volume of a given material bond can be detected and/or determined using one or more cameras and passed on or transmitted as a physical parameter to the control device” [0090]), receiving from a weld imager image data based on an image of the strap joint (control subsystem receives weld imager image data which is the electronic form of the image of the strap joint);
determining, based on the image data, whether a weld-adjustment condition is met (control subsystem converts image into a physical parameter which control device 80 uses to determine bond strength, “In various embodiments of the inventive method, it is also conceivable that a large number of sensory measurements of actual physical parameters are carried out at certain time intervals and that, in the event of one or more deviations of the respective one or more measured actual physical parameters from target parameters stored in the control device, the time interval between several successive sensory measurements is shortened.” [0084]); and
responsive to determining that the weld-adjustment condition is met, automatically adjusting the weld parameter for a later sealing cycle (“if the bond is too strong, the temperature level of the welding head could be reduced and/or the dwell time during which the welding head is in contact with the end sections of strapping bands could be increased” [0088])
Re Claims 6, 8, 10, 16, 18, and 20, Winzinger still discloses the claimed strapping device under the new interpretation (see claim mapping above)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzinger (WO2015/193136) in view of Murray Jr et al. (US2005/0169346), hereinafter referred to as Murray.
Re Claim 2, Winzinger discloses the strapping device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the one or more controllers are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a control subsystem capable of converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the control subsystem converts the image into a physical parameter. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a control subsystem capable of measuring the weld width as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted.
Re Claim 3, Winzinger, in view of Murray, discloses the strapping device of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the one or more controllers (control subsystem and image analysis device 20, modifed in rejection to claim 2 to have the capability of image controller 74 of Murray) comprise a weld-imager controller (control subsystem) configured to determine the melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (control subsystem determines the physical parameter) and a separate device controller (control device 80) configured to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“In various embodiments of the inventive method, it is also conceivable that a large number of sensory measurements of actual physical parameters are carried out at certain time intervals and that, in the event of one or more deviations of the respective one or more measured actual physical parameters from target parameters stored in the control device, the time interval between several successive sensory measurements is shortened” [0084]).
Re Claim 12, Winzinger discloses the method of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), but fails to disclose determining a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data and determining whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint.
Murray teaches that the one or more controllers (image controller 74) are further configured to determine a melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60” [0034]) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (“The image controller 74 determines the width of the weld pool 60 and compares the determined width to a threshold width range to determine whether the width of the weld pool 60 is within the threshold width range” [0034])
Murray also teaches that the size of the melt area is proportional to the heat input (“when a portion of the weld pool is not heated to a proper temperature, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too low, the width of the weld pool at that portion may be too narrow and a weak point or even a void in the weld may result. On the other hand, when a portion of the weld pool is overheated, i.e., the temperature of the portion is too high, gas voids may form in the weld pool. As the weld pool cools, the gas voids may result in weak points or voids in the weld” [0004]).
Winzinger discloses a method with control subsystem capable of converting an image into a physical parameter ([0090]), that the force required to break the weld can be indirectly detected via the camera ([0090]), and the inverted parabolic relationship between the amount of heat input and the strength of the weld ([0210]), but fails to disclose how the method determines the weld strength based on the camera images. This lack of disclosure is a design incentive that would have prompted adaptation of the known device. Murray teaches the principle that weld strength is proportional to weld width and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that weld width is practically equivalent to melted area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the weld width based on the image as taught by Murray in order to determine weld strength as one of ordinary skill in the art could have predicted and determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met.
Re Claim 13, Winzinger, in view of Murray, discloses the method of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), which comprises causing a weld-imager controller (control subsystem) to determine the melted area of the strap joint based on the image data (control subsystem converts the image data into the physical parameter) and a separate device controller (control device 80) to determine whether the weld-adjustment condition is met based on the melted area of the strap joint (control device checks physical parameter against target parameters and “if the bond is too strong, the temperature level of the welding head could be reduced and/or the dwell time during which the welding head is in contact with the end sections of strapping bands could be increased” [0088]).
Re Claims 5, 7, 9, 15, 17, and 19, Winzinger, in view of Murray, still discloses the claimed strapping device under the new interpretation (see claim mapping above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walde et al (US2024/0116122), hereinafter referred to as Walde teaches a strapping device with a camera and controller capable of working on either plastic or metals (“The workpieces may include metal, in particular steel, aluminum and copper, or plastic” [0037])
Wagner et al. (US2022/0009026) teaches an imager/controller that determines the weld area based on luminance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
