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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I: claims 1-7, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 01/20/26 is acknowledged and entered by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-20 are thus pending for prosecution, of which, non-elected claims 8-20 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1-7 are examined on their merits.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “infrared detection unit; visible light detection unit; spectroscopic unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, " the spectroscopic unit " in line 3, should be changed to – a spectroscopic unit --.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru et al. (JP 2007098442) (herein after Masaru) [cited in the IDs] in view of Denney et al. (US 20130087543 A1) (herein after Denney).
As to claim(s) 1, Masaru discloses a system comprising:
an optical device comprising:
an infrared detection unit (temperature sensor 14, see fig. 1…page 2) that detects light generated at a weldment (2) during welding;
a visible light detection unit (plasma optical sensor 13, see fig. 1 …page 2) that detects plasma generated at the weldment (page 2).
[Note: Since the Claim 1 has “and/or”, for examination purposes Examiner’s considering this limitation only: “an optical device comprising: an infrared detection unit that detects heat generated at a weldment during welding; a visible light detection unit that detects plasma generated at the weldment”].
Masaru discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “detects heat”.
However, Denney from the same field of endeavor discloses a detection unit [307] that detects heat generated at a weldment (The system 800 can monitor the heat input into the weld puddle WP to determine the bead profile and control the system to attain the desired bead profile. For example, the interaction time/energy density of the laser beam can be controlled to obtain the desired weld bead profile. In further embodiments, the sensor 307…¶0063)( FIG. 8. However, in the system 800 the sensor 307 senses a temperature of the weld puddle WP during welding to determine an energy level of the beam 111 to be directed at the puddle WP…¶0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Masaru such that the infrared detection unit that detects heat generated at the weldment; as taught by Denney, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
As of claim 2, Masaru discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein welding light generated during welding of the weldment passes through the infrared detection unit (14), the visible light detection unit (13), and the spectroscopic unit (15) in sequence (see fig.1 and page 2).
As of claim 3, Masaru discloses the system wherein the infrared detection unit comprises: a first optical filter that reflects or transmits a portion of welding light generated during welding of the weldment (the temperature sensor 14 is provided with an infrared light filter 14a through which only infrared light can pass. In the temperature sensor 14, the infrared light that has passed through the infrared light filter 14a in the second spectrum 5b…page 2); and an infrared sensor that receives a first portion of the welding light reflected from the first optical filter (FIG. 2, the plasma light component, the infrared light component, and the reflected light component included in the return light 5 are detected in different wavelength bands, so that the plasma light filter 13a, the infrared light filter 14a…page 2), wherein: the visible light detection unit receives a second portion of the welding light that has transmitted through the first optical filter (the temperature sensor 14 is provided with an infrared light filter 14a through which only infrared light can pass. In the temperature sensor 14, the infrared light that has passed through the infrared light filter 14a in the second spectrum 5b. Only the light component is detected. Further, the reflected light sensor 15 is provided with a reflected light filter 15a through which only reflected light can pass…page 2), a wavelength band of the first portion is included in an infrared band, and a wavelength band of the second portion is included in a visible light band (The plasma light sensor 13 is provided with a plasma light filter 13a through which only plasma light can pass. In the plasma light sensor 13, only the plasma light component that has passed through the plasma light filter 13a in the first spectrum 5a. Detected…page 2).
As of claims 4 and 6, Masaru discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The system wherein the wavelength band of the first portion is determined based on a type of welding target.
The system as claimed in claim 5, wherein a wavelength band of the third portion is determined based on a type of welding target”.
However, Denney from the same field of endeavor discloses a wavelength band of the first portion is determined based on a type of welding target (¶0067);
a wavelength band of the third portion is determined based on a type of welding target (¶0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Masaru such that the wavelength band of the first portion is determined based on the type of welding target; the wavelength band of the third portion is determined based on the type of welding target as taught by Denney, for the advantages such as: to measure the optical property with higher precision and also facilitate focusing at the object.
As of claim 5, Masaru discloses the system, wherein the visible light detection unit comprises: a second optical filter that splits received light (The return light 5 is split by the first spectroscopic lens 22 and the extracted first spectroscope 5 a is detected by the plasma light sensor 13…page 2); and a visible light sensor (13) that receives a third portion of the welding light, the third portion being generated by splitting the second portion through the second optical filter, wherein the spectroscopic unit (15) receives a fourth portion of the welding light, the fourth portion being generated by splitting the second portion through the second optical filter (the plasma light component is detected from the first light spectrum Sa obtained by spectrally separating the return light 5, and The infrared light component is detected from the second light 5b obtained by further separating the return light 5 after the first light 5a is extracted, and the reflected light component is the remaining light 5c after the second light 5b is extracted…page 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru et al. in view of Denney et al. and further in view of Xu et al. (US 20240062349 A1) (herein after Xu).
As of claim 7, Masaru when modified by Denney discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The system wherein the infrared sensor performs a high dynamic range (HDR) processing on the first portion, and wherein the visible light sensor performs the HDR processing on the third portion”.
However, Xu from the same field of endeavor discloses a sensor performs a high dynamic range (HDR) processing on the first portion, and wherein a sensor performs the HDR processing on the third portion (¶0041, 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Masaru when modified by Denney such that the infrared sensor performs the high dynamic range (HDR) processing on the first portion, and wherein the visible light sensor performs the HDR processing on the third portion; as taught by Xu, for the advantages such as: produce a greater range of highlight, color, and shadow details on a captured frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877