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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 12, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“an image processing step” in claims 1 and 16-17. The corresponding acts in the disclosure to perform the “image processing step” include contrast correction, brightness correction, color correction, monochrome image conversion such as binarization, noise removal, edge enhancement, contraction/expansion, image feature extraction, and the like (page 11).
“an image division step” in claims 1 and 16-17. The corresponding acts in the disclosure to perform the “image division step” include steps S601-S609 described on pages 17-20 and FIG. 6.
“a derivation step” in claims 1 and 16-17. The corresponding acts in the disclosure to perform the “derivation step” include calculating an indicator value of thin fumes, arc light, thick fumes, and/or spatter described on pages 15-16 and 21-23 and FIG. 4.
“image processing means”, “image division means”, and “derivation means” in claims 12-13. The corresponding structure in the disclosure includes one or more processors that can read and execute a program supplied by a network or a storage medium and/or a circuit implementing one or more functions (pages 25-26).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“a labeling step” in claims 1 and 16
“a classification step” in claims 1 and 16
“a setting step” in claim 7
Because these claim limitation(s) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (JP2018192524A) in view of Ando et al. (US 2021/0016383 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses a welding phenomenon behavior measuring method comprising: an image processing step for carrying out, in accordance with a behavior of a welding phenomenon of interest, image processing (Okamoto paragraph 0085: “The CPU 111 reduces the size of the received welding image to 120×100 pixels and converts it into a grayscale image”) with respect to a welding image that has been imaged by a visual sensor (Okamoto paragraph 0085: “the camera 60 captures an image of the molten pool and the arc, and the welding image is provided to the correction information generating device 100”); an image division step for using the processed image that has been generated in the image processing step to generate a plurality of divided images for respective constituent elements corresponding to the welding phenomenon (Okamoto paragraph 0086: “the CPU 111 uses the machine learning model 260 to divide the welding image into a wire region 201, a molten pool region 202, an arc region 203, and a background region”); and a derivation step for using at least two divided images among the plurality of divided images to derive the behavior of the welding phenomenon (Okamoto paragraph 0091: “The CPU 111 compares the area of the arc region 203 (hereinafter referred to as the arc area) with a predetermined normal range, and determines whether the welding state is normal”), wherein: the image division step comprises: a labeling step for performing labeling processing on pixels included in the processed image (Okamoto paragraph 0079: “The labeled image in this embodiment is an image in which each pixel is labeled with a pixel value of "1" for the wire region 201, a pixel value of "2" for the molten pool region 202, a pixel value of "3" for the arc region 203, and a pixel value of "0" for the other background regions”); and a classification step for classifying each of one or more regions composed of a group of pixels labeled in the labeling step into a constituent element corresponding to the welding phenomenon (Okamoto paragraph 0079: “the welding image can be divided into an area of the welding wire 24 (hereinafter referred to as the "wire area") 201, an area of the molten pool (hereinafter referred to as the "molten pool area") 202, an area of the arc (hereinafter referred to as the "arc area") 203, and other background areas 204”). However, Okamoto fails to disclose the classification step comprises at least one of: a step for classifying each of the one or more regions into a constituent element corresponding to the welding phenomenon based on pixel count; a step for classifying each of the one or more regions into a constituent element corresponding to the welding phenomenon based on position and size; or a step for classifying a region of interest into a constituent element corresponding to the welding phenomenon based on a ratio of a group of pixels constituting the region of interest to a rectangular region encompassing the region of interest. In the related art of welding, Ando discloses the classification step comprises at least one of: a step for classifying each of the one or more regions into a constituent element corresponding to the welding phenomenon based on pixel count (Ando paragraphs 0061, 0074: “When the size of the area which is composed of adjacent pixels having the black and white gradation equal to or higher than the threshold value is equal to or smaller than the predetermined detection size, the counting unit 153 determines that the area is an area that satisfies the condition indicated by the image analysis parameter, and counts as spatter” where “The detection size is a threshold value of the size (the number of pixels) recognized as the spatter”); a step for classifying each of the one or more regions into a constituent element corresponding to the welding phenomenon based on position and size; or a step for classifying a region of interest into a constituent element corresponding to the welding phenomenon based on a ratio of a group of pixels constituting the region of interest to a rectangular region encompassing the region of interest (this limitation is disclosed in an alternative clause and thus, read only on the first limitation). 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 Okamoto to incorporate the teachings of Ando to detect spatters in a cost-effective manner (Ando paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses the welding phenomenon behavior measuring method according to Claim 1, wherein: the constituent elements corresponding to the welding phenomenon include at least two of spatter, fumes, arc light (Okamoto paragraph 0086: “an arc region 203”), a molten pool (Okamoto paragraph 0086: “a molten pool region 202”), background (Okamoto paragraph 0086: “a background region”), or an obstacle.
Regarding claim 12, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses a welding system (Okamoto paragraph 0035: “automatic welding system 10”) comprising: a welding device (Okamoto paragraph 0035: “a welding robot 20”); a visual sensor that images a welding operation by the welding device (Okamoto paragraph 0040: “The camera 60 has an imaging range set to the welding point of the workpiece 50, and captures images of the molten pool and the arc during arc welding”); and a measuring device that measures a behavior of a welding phenomenon using a welding image imaged by the visual sensor (Okamoto paragraph 0085: “the welding image is provided to the correction information generating device 100”), wherein the measuring device is configured to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses the limitations of claim 12 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is the corresponding device configured to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses the limitations of claim 13 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses a welding method comprising: controlling a welding operation based on the behavior of the welding phenomenon derived by the measuring device according to claim 13 (Okamoto paragraph 0090: “the robot control device 30 performs welding control based on the correction information, and the power supply device 40 controls the welding voltage based on the correction information”).
Regarding claim 16, it is the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses the limitations of claim 16 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto and Ando in view of Takeshita (US 2021/0268586 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses the welding phenomenon behavior measuring method according to Claim 1. However, Okamoto fails to disclose in the image division step, a divided image composed of a region of spatter and a divided image composed of a region of fumes are at least generated among the constituent elements corresponding to the welding phenomenon. In the related art of manufacturing, Takeshita discloses in the image division step, a divided image composed of a region of spatter and a divided image composed of a region of fumes are at least generated among the constituent elements corresponding to the welding phenomenon (Takeshita FIG. 5, paragraph 0111: “The detection unit 54 detects the state of at least a part of the predetermined region in the material layer based on the image data generated by the imager 41…the predetermined region includes…a region where spatter has occurred, and a region where a fume has been produced”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Okamoto to incorporate the teachings of Takeshita to identify spatter and fume since they may lead to risk of occurrence of manufacturing defects (Takeshita paragraph 0153).
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses the welding phenomenon behavior measuring method according to Claim 1. However, Okamoto fails to explicitly disclose in the derivation step, an indicator value of at least one of spatter or fumes is derived as the behavior of the welding phenomenon. In related art, Takeshita discloses in the derivation step, an indicator value of at least one of spatter or fumes is derived as the behavior of the welding phenomenon (Takeshita FIG. 6(b), paragraph 0191: “the detection unit 54 obtains the high-temperature region to be the spatter SP”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Okamoto to incorporate the teachings of Takeshita to identify spatter and fume since they may lead to risk of occurrence of manufacturing defects (Takeshita paragraph 0153).
Regarding claim 7, Okamoto, modified by Ando and Takeshita, discloses the welding phenomenon behavior measuring method according to Claim 5, further comprising: a setting step for setting a period to be measured (Takeshita paragraph 0135: “a predetermined time interval, for example, each time the XY plane is scanned by the scanning unit 33 with the laser beam by a predetermined distance”), wherein the image processing step, the image division step, and the derivation step are performed using a welding image included in a period set in the setting step (Takeshita paragraph 0135: “The imager 41 captures the image at a predetermined time interval”).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto and Ando in view of Mizuno et al. (JP2002205166A).
Regarding claim 8, Okamoto, modified by Ando, discloses the welding phenomenon behavior measuring method according to Claim 1. However, Okamoto fails to explicitly disclose the image processing step includes at least one of processing to separate the welding image into images for respective color components, binarization processing, or processing to obtain or exclude smoothly fluctuating pixel values. In the related art of welding, Mizuno discloses the image processing step includes at least one of processing to separate the welding image into images for respective color components (Mizuno paragraph 0008: “The color imaging device captures an image of the welded portion during welding to generate a color video signal, and the image processing device decomposes the color video signal into RGB components”), binarization processing, or processing to obtain or exclude smoothly fluctuating pixel values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Okamoto to incorporate the teachings of Mizuno to clearly display the state of the molten pool for each welding machine, allowing the welding state to be accurately grasped in a short amount of time to obtain high-quality welding results (Mizuno paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 9, Okamoto, modified by Ando and Mizuno, discloses the welding phenomenon behavior measuring method according to Claim 8, wherein, in the processing to separate the welding image into images for respective color components, color component images for respective color components of R, G, and B are generated from the welding image (Mizuno paragraph 0008: “The color imaging device captures an image of the welded portion during welding to generate a color video signal, and the image processing device decomposes the color video signal into RGB components”).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto, Ando and Mizuno in view of Kondou (US 2023/0018730 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Okamoto, modified by Ando and Mizuno, discloses the welding phenomenon behavior measuring method according to Claim 9. However, Okamoto and Mizuno fail to explicitly disclose an indicator value of at least one of arc light, spatter, or thick fumes is derived using the color component image of R. In the related art of welding, Kondou discloses an indicator value of at least one of arc light, spatter, or thick fumes is derived using the color component image of R (Kondou FIG. 7, paragraph 0057: “determines whether or not a condition is satisfied that average value Gave of the green component in the color information of reference pixel CP is greater than the product of first set value α and average value Rave of the red component in the color information of the reference pixel CP, and average value Bave of the blue component in the color information of reference pixel CP is greater than the product of second set value β and average value Rave of the red component in the color information of reference pixel CP...spatter candidate region SR satisfying the condition is identified as the reflected light region”). 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 Okamoto and Mizuno to incorporate the teachings of Kondou to identify the number of spatters of the input images more accurately (Kondou paragraph 0006).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
Claims 6 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the cited prior art either alone or in combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest: in the derivation step, in a case of deriving an indicator value of fumes, an edge is detected for a divided image with a region of spatter removed, the divided image is divided into a plurality of regions based on the detected edge, and an indicator value of the fumes is calculated based on an area of the plurality of regions.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art either alone or in combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest: an indicator value of thin fumes is derived using the color component image of B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that “Okamoto does not disclose or suggest generating a plurality of divided images and deriving a behavior based on their relationship”, Okamoto teaches comparing the area of arc region 203 with a predetermined normal range to determine whether the welding state is normal (Okamoto paragraph 0091). The arc region 203 is identified using machine learning model 260 (Okamoto paragraph 0086). The machine learning model 260 is constructed by supervised learning using a large amount of training data, wherein the training data is composed of a welding image and a divided label image (Okamoto paragraph 0080). A large amount of divided label images is used in training machine learning model 260, which is subsequently used to identify arc region 203 and determine whether the welding state is normal. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, multiple divided images are used to derive the behavior of the welding phenomenon as claimed in independent claim 1.
Regarding the argument that “nothing in the art suggests the claimed feature of classifying the multiple labeled regions by type to evaluate multiple phenomena”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “classifying the multiple labeled regions by type to evaluate multiple phenomena”) 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). Independent claim 1 does not require classifying multiple labeled regions (claim 1 recites “classifying each of one or more regions”) nor evaluating multiple phenomena (claim 1 recites “a welding phenomenon of interest”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINE ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-5986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/C.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights