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 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) 1-8, 10, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al (US 2015/0158119).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses, A method for monitoring a laser welding process (See Claim 1 and paragraphs [0038], [0071], the method comprising the steps of:
performing the laser welding process by a laser welding head (1) which irradiates a laser beam (See Abstract)) onto at least one work piece (workpiece W) for forming a weld joint, wherein the laser beam is guided along a processing path by a deflection device (14, See Paragraphs [0041], [0042]),
detecting a radiation emanating from the work piece and coupled into the laser welding head as sensor data by at least two sensors (20, 30) during the laser welding process, wherein the radiation runs at least partially superimposed with the laser beam and is decoupled from the beam path of the laser beam after passing the deflection device (mirror 14, See Paragraphs [0050]-[0052])
in order to impinge on the at least two sensors (20, 30); and
determining (S3) whether the weld joint has a defect based on the detected sensor data and at least one processing parameter of the laser welding process. (See Paragraphs [0038], [0071], [0084])
Regarding claim 2, when the defect is detected, the workpiece with the defect is removed. (See Paragraph [0097]) Regarding claim 3, Fig 1 shows the beam being irradiated on the workpiece W. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Photodiodes 23 and 33 measure the intensity of radiation in an IR wavelength range with a second diode detecting the reflected radiation intensity from the workpiece. (See Paragraphs [0057], [0062]) Regarding claim 6, the defect would be determined in real-time or after performing the process. Regarding claim 7, the defect is an underfill of the welding joint which would be an insufficient physical connection. (See Paragraph [0100]) Regarding claim 8, the defect is determined by a calculated integrated value, which would be an equation. (See Paragraph [0018]) Regarding claim 10, Fig 9 shows the laser output being controlled based on the detected intensity. (See Paragraph [0035])
A laser welding system comprising: a laser welding head for irridiating a laser beam (See Fig 1) onto at least one work piece (workpiece W) to form a weld joint, wherein the laser welding head comprises a deflection device for guiding the laser beam along (devices 14, 21 and 31 deflect the beam along a process path and deflect to sensors) a processing path at least two sensors, wherein each of the sensors is arranged to detect radiation emanating from the work piece (sensors 23, 33, or 20, 30) and coupled into the laser welding head as sensor data during the laser welding process, and a control unit (analyser 40) arranged to perform a method according to claim 1. (See Paragraphs [0038], [0050]-[0052], [0071], [0072], [0084]) Regarding claim 14, the analyzer 40 adjusts the output power of the laser. (See Paragraph [0072], [0130]) Regarding claim 15, mirrors 21 and 31 act as coupling in devices for deflecting the radiation from the workpiece to the sensors. (See Fig 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 2015/0158119) in view of Disk Laser Welding State Multi Sensory Information Fusion Analysis", Highward East et al., Journal of Welding, Vol. 36, No. 12, December 2015 as cited by applicant.
The teachings of Nakamura have been discussed above. Nakamura discloses evaluating sensor data independently as discussed above. Nakamura fails to disclose, determining whether the weld joint has a defect comprises: combining the evaluations by a logic operation, and determining whether the weld joint has a defect based on the combined evaluation.
Highward discloses, (see Abstract, Section 3):" extracting the characteristic parameters of each sensor signal separately (equivalent to analyzing the sensor data of each sensor separately in this application); feature layer fusion with fuzzy neural networks (equivalent to combining analytic processes by logical linking in this application); an accurate identification of the weld penetration state is achieved (equivalent to the determination in the present application of whether the weld connection is defective or not based on the combined analysis process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to adapt Nakamura in view of Highward to provide combining the evaluations by a logic operation, and determining whether the weld joint has a defect based on the combined evaluation for providing a more accurate analysis of a defect being present.
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 2015/0158119) in view of Kanko et al (US 2017/0120337).
The teachings of Nakamura have been discussed above. Nakamura fails to disclose preprocessing by means of an FPGA. Kanko discloses detecting radiation intensity using sensor 837. (See Paragraphs [0429], [0532], [0572]). The system uses an FPGA for processing data from the photodiode 837. It would have been obvious to adapt Nakamura in view of Kanko to provide the FPGA for reducing feedback latency during processing.
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura fails to disclose the deflection device has a maximum deflection angle greater than 10 degrees, in particular 20 degrees, and/or wherein the deflection device has a scanning field whose length and/or width is equal to or greater than 50 mm. Kanko discloses controlling the angle of incidence and deflection angle to adapt to changes in the workpiece. (See Paragraphs [0565]-[0567]) It would have been obvious to adapt Nakamura in view of Kanko to provide the deflection device has a maximum deflection angle greater than 10 degrees, in particular 20 degrees, and/or wherein the deflection device has a scanning field whose length and/or width is equal to or greater than 50 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
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 6/3/2026
