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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2024, 08/05/2024 and 08/05/2024 were being considered by the examiner.
The PCT international search report filed on 08/28/2024 was considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 14–15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 7, “greater than or equal to 5 to 10 Kelvin” does not establish whether the boundary is 5 K, 10 K, or a selectable value in the range.
With regards to claims 14 and 15, “the evaluation region equals ±20% of the head surface” is unclear because an area does not ordinarily equal a positive-or-negative percentage. It may mean 80–120% of head area, within 20% of a reference area, or another relationship. Claim 15 inherits that uncertainty.
With regards to claim 17, “significant temperature input” lacks an objective boundary such as temperature rise, contrast, signal-to-noise ratio, or classification reliability. The specification’s functional objective does not supply a reasonably certain claim boundary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3–4, 6, 16, 19–20, 22–24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ (US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Beyer teaches “a method for non-destructively testing a connection point in a component assembly” (Beyer’s nondestructive thermographic quality testing of a joining region of joined vehicle-body components) using a thermography camera (22), a pulsed excitation source (21), and an evaluation unit (23) ([0001], [0007]–[0011], [0031]–[0034]; Figs. 3–4). Beyer further teaches arranging the pulsed excitation source on a component side opposite the thermography camera for transmission measurement ([0031]–[0034]; Figs. 3–4).
Beyer teaches “at a first detection time, capturing a reference image of the connection point via the thermal imaging camera” and “at a second detection time, capturing a test image analogous to the reference image, said second detection time occurring after the first detection time and a specified duration after the excitation time” by acquiring multiple pre-pulse images to establish a reliable zero-intensity baseline, applying the excitation pulse at 50 ms, acquiring a time sequence of images of the same joining region, and evaluating the spatial image data at the predetermined post-pulse time of 200 ms ([0033], [0035]–[0038], [0041]; Figs. 4–7).
Beyer teaches “defining an analysis region in at least one of the test image and in the reference image,” dividing the analysis region into pixel or multi-pixel sub-regions, and assigning the sub-regions a temperature value by selecting individual pixels or multi-pixel camera regions, centering the camera region on the joining point, and treating the recorded infrared intensity as a measure of the temperature of the corresponding imaged portion ([0010], [0037], [0041], [0043]–[0044]; Figs. 5, 7, and 9).
Beyer teaches forming a qualifying pixel value when the measured post-pulse thermal response exceeds a predetermined lower threshold, summing the total area or number of qualifying pixels, comparing that sum with a predetermined minimum acceptable qualifying-area boundary, and classifying the joining point as adequately or inadequately joined based on that comparison ([0041]–[0042], [0047], [0051]–[0052]; Figs. 7–8 and 10). In the claim’s terminology, Beyer’s qualifying bright or welded pixel is the “OK” sub-region value, its minimum acceptable qualifying area is the lower boundary of the reference interval, and its proper/improper joint result is the “OK”/“not OK” connection classification.
Beyer, however, does not expressly teach:
“the connection point comprising a base layer and at least one cover layer, and a connection element with a head and a shaft, the connection point being formed between the shaft of the connection element and the base layer”;
“wherein the cover layer has a thermal conductivity which is greater than that of the base layer and of the connection element”;
an inductor arranged opposite the thermal-imaging camera that “inductively excites the base layer at an excitation time by means of a pulse via an active surface”;
“the head being imaged in said reference image as a head surface” and an analysis region that “at least partly comprises the head surface”; or
“forming a temperature change value using a rule on the basis of the temperature values of the corresponding sub-regions of the reference and test images,” and consequently assigning the claimed “OK” value based on an interval applied to that reference-to-test temperature-change value.
Beyer instead discloses ordinary joined sheets without a headed/shafted connection element, uses a flash lamp rather than an inductor, and applies its pixel threshold to post-pulse intensity or normalized time histories rather than expressly to a corresponding-sub-region reference/test difference ([0023], [0034], [0038], [0041]–[0049]; Figs. 1, 5, 7, and 9).
Rathmann teaches the missing reference/test temperature-change processing by acquiring and displaying reference images and preprocessing thermographic measurement data through difference-image processing for automatic OK/not-OK evaluation of a joint ([0019]–[0021]; Figs. 1–8). Applied to Beyer’s spatially registered pre-pulse and post-pulse pixels, Rathmann’s processing forms the claimed temperature-change value from corresponding reference-image and test-image sub-regions.
Kempen teaches the missing inductive excitation arrangement by positioning a planar-circular induction coil (5) at an excitation-side component surface (4), supplying the coil with high-frequency current from an inductor or induction generator (6), and inductively exciting the joined component by a pulse to create a heating zone around the weld. Kempen further teaches an approximately planar coil-envelope portion (12) forming the active or excitation surface and an infrared camera (10) on the component side opposite the excitation side ([0007]–[0013], [0024]–[0028]; Figs. 1–7).
Christ teaches the missing connection-point architecture: an aluminum upper or cover component (3), a high-strength-steel lower or base component (4), and an alloy-steel friction-welding connection element (2) having a retaining shoulder or head (7) and a penetrating projection or shaft (5), with the projection passing through the cover component and forming a friction-weld connection (6) with the base component ([0001]–[0007]; Fig. 1; claims 8–12). Christ further teaches that the exposed shoulder or head (7) is located on the cover-layer side opposite the projection-to-base weld ([0007]; Fig. 1).
Warey teaches the missing comparative material-property evidence by reporting aluminum thermal conductivity of 205–250 W·m⁻¹·K⁻¹ and steel thermal conductivity of 35–54 W·m⁻¹·K⁻¹ ([0013], [0017]). Warey corroborates that Christ’s expressly disclosed aluminum cover has greater thermal conductivity than Christ’s steel base and steel connection element; Warey is not relied upon to alter Christ’s connection architecture.
In view of the utility of applying Beyer’s automated pixel-area connection-quality classification to Christ’s concealed projection-to-base friction weld, a person of ordinary skill would have used Beyer’s registered pre-pulse/post-pulse acquisition and classification on Christ’s layered connection, substituted Kempen’s localized pulsed-induction active surface for Beyer’s flash source at Christ’s exposed steel-base side, and used Rathmann’s difference-image preprocessing before Beyer’s qualifying-pixel threshold. The predictable result is opposite-side induction thermography in which Christ’s exposed head is imaged from the cover side, the head surface lies at least partly within the connection-centered analysis region, corresponding reference/test sub-regions produce the temperature-change value, and Beyer’s qualifying-pixel sum provides the claimed OK/not-OK classification; Warey confirms the recited conductivity ordering of Christ’s selected materials.
With regard to claims 3, 4, and 6, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer further teaches selecting an observation period so defective joints retain distinguishable thermal differences, generating pixel or multi-pixel temperature/intensity curves through a maximum and subsequent negative slope, and deriving classification thresholds from those curves ([0035]–[0038], [0043]–[0049]; Figs. 5, 8–10).
With regard to claim 16, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer teaches averaging a multi-pixel evaluation region centered on the weld ([0037]–[0038]; Fig. 5). Applied to Christ’s coaxial head/shaft/weld geometry ([0005]–[0007]; Fig. 1), that weld-centered evaluation region is disposed centrally relative to the head surface.
With regard to claims 19, 20, and 22, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer, however, does not expressly teach that the component assembly is a mixed-construction joint having a steel base layer, an aluminum cover layer, and a friction connection element.
Christ teaches a mixed-construction assembly having an aluminum upper/cover component (3), a high-strength-steel lower/base component (4), and an alloy-steel friction element (2) whose shaft/projection (5) is friction-welded to the base ([0001]–[0007]; Fig. 1; claims 8–12).
In view of the utility of verifying the concealed friction weld in a lightweight aluminum-over-steel automotive assembly without destructive sectioning, a person of ordinary skill would have applied Beyer’s production thermography method to Christ’s mixed-material friction-element joint. The predictable result is nondestructive classification of the recited connection.
With regard to claim 23, Beyer teaches “a device comprising a thermal imaging camera, a positioning means, … and an evaluation control unit” through thermography camera (22), robot manipulators (26) that position the camera and excitation source relative to the connection point, evaluation unit (23), and overall controller (30) ([0009], [0032]–[0034]; Fig. 4).
Beyer further teaches that the evaluation control unit performs the primary’s nondestructive-testing sequence by receiving and automatically processing the camera image sequence, acquiring multiple pre-pulse baseline images and later post-pulse images at predetermined times, selecting and evaluating pixel or multi-pixel camera regions, assigning qualifying pixel states through a lower thermal threshold, summing the qualifying area, and classifying the joint from that sum ([0009]–[0010], [0033]–[0038], [0041]–[0042], [0047], [0051]–[0052]; Figs. 4–10).
Beyer, however, does not expressly teach: (1) the recited inductor; (2) the claimed base-layer, cover-layer, and headed/shafted connection-element architecture; (3) the claimed conductivity relationship; (4) inductively exciting the base layer by a pulse through an active surface opposite the thermal-imaging camera; (5) imaging the connection-element head as a head surface and including that head surface in the analysis region; or (6) forming the claimed corresponding-sub-region reference/test temperature-change value before assigning the OK value. Beyer instead uses a flash excitation source and an ordinary resistance-spot-weld assembly ([0023], [0034], [0038], [0041]–[0049]; Figs. 1, 5, 7, and 9).
Christ teaches the missing device-side connection structure through aluminum cover component (3), steel base component (4), and alloy-steel connection element (2) having exposed head or shoulder (7) and shaft or projection (5) friction-welded to the base ([0001]–[0007]; Fig. 1; claims 8–12).
Warey teaches the missing comparative conductivity evidence by reporting aluminum at 205–250 W·m⁻¹·K⁻¹ and steel at 35–54 W·m⁻¹·K⁻¹ ([0013], [0017]), thereby corroborating the claimed ordering for Christ’s expressly disclosed materials.
Kempen teaches the missing inductor and positioning structure through induction generator (6), planar-circular induction coil (5), planar active surface (12), robot-guided positioning device (14), pulsed inductive excitation at the weld, and an infrared camera on the opposite component side ([0007]–[0013], [0024]–[0030]; Figs. 1–7).
Rathmann teaches the missing controller-implemented reference/test difference processing through reference-image display, difference-image preprocessing, and automatic OK/not-OK evaluation ([0019]–[0021]; Figs. 1–8).
In view of the utility of implementing the coordinated positioning, excitation, acquisition, evaluation, and classification functions in Beyer’s disclosed controller and evaluation unit, a person of ordinary skill would have configured the combined Beyer–Christ–Kempen–Rathmann device to perform the complete recited sequence. The predictable result is a positioned opposite-side induction-thermography device that images Christ’s exposed head surface, evaluates corresponding reference/test sub-regions using Rathmann’s difference processing, and applies Beyer’s qualifying-area classification, with Warey corroborating the recited conductivity relationship.
With regard to claims 24 and 26, for the limitations inherited from claim 23, refer to the rejection of claim 23 above. Beyer teaches computer-controlled manipulators that position the excitation source and thermography camera and an evaluation computer that controls timed image acquisition and evaluation ([0031]–[0034], [0037]–[0038]; Fig. 4).
Beyer does not expressly state that the same evaluation control unit commands the manipulators. Integrating those coordinated inspection functions into the evaluation controller would have been an ordinary centralized-control implementation, avoiding a separate positioning controller while preserving Beyer’s synchronized positioning, excitation, acquisition, and evaluation. Beyer further teaches common or separately movable source/camera manipulators, accounting for the independently adjustable sub-means of claim 26 ([0031]–[0034]; Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 28, for the limitations inherited from claim 23, refer to the rejection of claim 23 above. Beyer further teaches storing image sequences, time curves, and evaluated results in the evaluation system/database ([0008]–[0009], [0034]–[0038]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ (US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cox et al. (US 5,032,727).
With regard to claim 2, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer teaches corresponding pre-pulse reference and post-pulse test-image pixels but does not expressly teach the claimed subtraction direction.
Cox teaches forming similar regular arrays of infrared values for a known reference sample and a test sample and subtracting the reference-sample image from the test-sample image on a corresponding-pixel basis (col. 1, ll. 50–60; col. 2, ll. 15–25).
In view of the utility of suppressing static background response and isolating the pulse-induced temperature change, a person of ordinary skill would have applied Cox’s expressly disclosed test-minus-reference pixel subtraction to Beyer’s temporally corresponding test and reference images. The predictable result is the claimed temperature-change value obtained by subtracting each reference-image sub-region temperature value from the corresponding test-image sub-region temperature value
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ(US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Grosso et al., “Pulsed Thermography Inspection of Composite Anticorrosive Coatings: Defect Detection and Analysis of Their Thermal Behavior through Computational Simulation” (Materials 13, 4812 (2020)).
With regard to claim 5, for the limitations inherited from claim 4, refer to the rejection of claim 4 above. Beyer further teaches thermal-response curves that reach a maximum and then decline ([0035]–[0038]; Fig. 5), but does not expressly teach selecting the second detection time as the time of maximum temperature change while requiring that maximum temperature change to be at least 2 K.
Grosso teaches calculating absolute thermal contrast as the defective-region temperature minus a defect-free reference-region temperature, selecting the thermogram representing the highest thermal contrast for post-processing, and applying that selection to an approximately 3,000-thermogram pulsed-thermography sequence (p. 4, §2.3, Eq. (1); p. 6, §4.1, Fig. 5). Grosso further teaches the evolution of absolute thermal contrast over time and expressly adopts 2 °C as the minimum detectable contrast because that value corresponded to the thermal camera’s tolerable reading error (p. 14, Fig. 15; p. 15, Table 6).
Grosso is reasonably pertinent because it addresses the same pulse-thermography problem of selecting the observation time that maximizes defect-to-reference thermal contrast and exceeds camera uncertainty, irrespective of whether the inspected structure is a composite panel or a connection point.
In view of that utility, a person of ordinary skill would have selected Grosso’s maximum-contrast time for Beyer’s second detection time. The predictable result is capturing the test image at the maximum temperature change while requiring at least a 2 K response.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ (US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gitzel et al. (US 2021/0037196 A1).
With regard to claim 7, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer further teaches qualifying pixels by comparing their thermal response with a threshold ([0041]–[0042]; Fig. 7), but does not expressly teach assigning the “OK” value at a pixel temperature change greater than or equal to a threshold selected within 5–10 K.
Gitzel teaches qualifying infrared-image pixels using temperature-difference thresholds of 5 °C, 7 °C, and 10 °C relative to a calculated image temperature ([0032]–[0037], [0050]–[0053]). A temperature difference of 1 °C equals 1 K.
In view of the utility of setting Beyer’s binary criterion on the already-formed temperature-change image above ordinary image variation while retaining sensitivity to localized heating, a person of ordinary skill would have used one of Gitzel’s expressly disclosed 5–10 K temperature-difference thresholds as the qualifying boundary. This construction remains subject to the §112(b) rejection below because “greater than or equal to 5 to 10 Kelvin” does not identify a single boundary.
With regard to claim 8, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer further teaches generating thermal-response curves for the inspected joint ([0035]–[0038], [0043]–[0049]; Figs. 5, 8–10), but does not expressly teach generating or adjusting the curve under the ambient conditions prevailing when the test image is taken.
Gitzel teaches dynamically changing the thermal threshold to account for the influence of ambient-air temperature inside or outside the inspected equipment ([0052]).
In view of the utility of preventing plant-temperature variation from shifting Beyer’s thermal classification, a person of ordinary skill would have applied Gitzel’s ambient compensation when generating and evaluating Beyer’s curve. The predictable result is a curve and threshold representative of the ambient conditions existing during acquisition.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer further teaches positioning the excitation source and thermography camera relative to the joint ([0031]–[0034], [0037]–[0038]; Figs. 3–5), but does not expressly teach an induction-coil active surface disposed centrally relative to the connection-element head and aligned with the thermal imaging camera.
Kempen teaches positioning the planar induction-coil active surface (12) centrally at the weld area and arranging the infrared camera (10) on the opposite component side ([0024], [0027]–[0030]; Figs. 1, 4–7).
Christ teaches a coaxial friction connection in which the head/shoulder (7), shaft/projection (5), and shaft-to-base joint share the connection center ([0001]–[0007]; Fig. 1).
In view of the utility of applying heat symmetrically about the concealed shaft-to-base joint and providing a direct transmission path to the opposed camera, a person of ordinary skill would have centered Kempen’s active surface on Christ’s connection axis. In Christ, the projection-to-base weld lies directly beneath and coaxial with the head/shoulder (7) and shaft/projection (5) ([0005]–[0007]; Fig. 1); thus, centering the excitation at that weld centers the active surface relative to the claimed head surface and aligns it with the opposed camera.
With regard to claim 12, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer counts or sums qualifying pixels and classifies the joint from that count ([0041]–[0042]; Fig. 7), but does not expressly teach an upper boundary for the claimed reference interval applied to the sum of OK-valued sub-regions.
Gitzel teaches that a result below or above a specified pixel count or number of connected regions for a specified temperature may be considered a fault ([0050]) and that the number of hot pixels may be compared with a baseline to indicate a fault ([0054]).
In view of the utility of distinguishing an acceptable population of thermally responsive pixels from both too few responsive pixels and an anomalously large response, a person of ordinary skill would have bounded Beyer’s summed OK-pixel count below and above around Gitzel’s baseline. The predictable result is the claimed reference interval, distinct from the pixel-temperature interval, having both lower and upper boundaries for the sum of OK-valued sub-regions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ(US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Na et al. (US 2014/0095096 A1).
With regard to claim 17, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer further teaches positioning an excitation source relative to the component assembly ([0031]–[0034]; Figs. 3–4), but does not expressly teach setting the inductor distance so as to generate a significant temperature input in the assembly.
Na teaches controlling thermal input by source-to-article distance, activation duration, or power so the response is sufficient to discriminate defects without saturation ([0015]–[0016], [0035]–[0037]; claim 8).
In view of the utility of producing a measurable thermographic response while avoiding saturation, a person of ordinary skill would have set Kempen’s inductor distance using Na’s known energy-control relationship. The predictable result is an input sufficient for discrimination. This rationale applies under that construction of “significant”; the separate §112(b) rejection is maintained.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ(US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cox et al. (US 5,032,727).
With regard to claim 18, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Beyer and Rathmann, however, do not expressly teach applying a filter to the temperature-change image to remove external errors.
Cox teaches noise filtering, spatial filtering, and masking known non-defect artifacts in thermal difference images (col. 2, ll. 54–65; col. 8, ll. 15–44; Figs. 4–6).
In view of the utility of suppressing camera noise and environmental artifacts before threshold classification, a person of ordinary skill would have applied Cox’s filtering to Rathmann’s temperature-change image used in Beyer’s classification method. The predictable result is reduced false classification caused by external errors.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ(US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Werz et al. (US 2018/0214975 A1).
With regard to claim 21, for the limitations inherited from claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Christ, within that inherited combination, teaches an aluminum cover layer (3), high-strength-steel base layer (4), and alloy-steel friction element (2) whose shaft/projection (5) is friction-welded to the base ([0001]–[0007]; Fig. 1; claims 8–12). The inherited combination, however, does not expressly teach a steel base-layer thickness between 0.8 mm and 2 mm together with an aluminum cover-layer thickness between 1.0 mm and 4 mm.
Werz teaches that aluminum/steel composite sheet construction is increasingly used for lightweight vehicle construction and that 2 mm aluminum sheets are ordinarily joined to 0.6–1 mm steel sheets because the higher-strength steel can be thinner than the lower-strength aluminum ([0002]). The disclosed 2 mm aluminum value lies within the claimed 1.0–4 mm cover range, and the disclosed 0.8–1 mm portion of the steel range overlaps the claimed 0.8–2 mm base range.
In view of the utility of using established lightweight vehicle-sheet gauges that account for the relative strength of aluminum and steel, a person of ordinary skill would have selected Werz’s ordinary overlapping aluminum and steel thicknesses for Christ’s expressly disclosed aluminum-over-high-strength-steel automotive friction-element joint. The selection would have been a predictable use of known, overlapping sheet gauges in the same mixed-material vehicle-joint environment and would have produced the recited thickness ranges without changing Christ’s connection architecture.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (DE 10 2006 057 802 A1) in view of Rathmann et al. (DE 10 2014 014 596 B3), Kempen et al. (DE 10 2011 114 547 A1), Christ(US 2013/0004234 A1), and Warey et al. (DE 10 2016 100 860 A1), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Bonigen (US 6,084,203).
With regard to claim 27, for the limitations inherited from claim 23, refer to the rejection of claim 23 above. Beyer further teaches a thermography camera, controller, and positioning manipulators ([0031]–[0034]; Fig. 4), but does not expressly teach detecting the connection-point position with the thermal imaging camera and using that detected position to control the positioning means.
Bonigen teaches detecting joint position with a camera integral with a movable welding head and controlling orthogonal translation using the detected position; Bonigen expressly identifies an infrared camera as suitable (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 45–65; col. 3, ll. 35–52). Its position-feedback architecture therefore does not depend on visible-light imaging and preserves the claimed thermal-camera registration function.
In view of the utility of automatically registering the inspection head to the joint actually observed by its camera, a person of ordinary skill would have used Bonigen’s detected-position feedback to control Beyer’s positioning manipulators. The predictable result is closed-loop positioning of the camera and inductor relative to the detected connection point.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11, 13, and 25 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Although the prior art of record discloses individual aspects of induction heating, thermal-image acquisition, image-region evaluation, contour detection, reference-based thresholds, and positioning structures, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the particular claimed intergral of those features within the complete inspection architecture recited by the respective parent claims.
With regard to claim 11, the prior art does not teach using the thermal-imaging camera to detect the contour of the connection-element head surface and using that detected contour to position the induction active surface relative to the head, while the inductor excites the base layer from the side opposite the camera and the camera supplies the reference and test images used for the claimed temperature-change classification. This integration permits the excitation and observation regions to be registered to the actual connection geometry, thereby improving repeatability and reducing inspection errors caused by misalignment.
With regard to claim 13, the prior art does not teach forming at least one boundary of the final reference interval as a tolerance of 10% of the sum of “OK” subregions obtained from a reference measurement within the claimed two-stage classification process. The limitation integrates pixel- or subregion-level thermal evaluation with reference-derived, connection-level classification and thereby adapts the final acceptance interval to the measured reference connection rather than merely applying an unrelated predetermined threshold.
With regard to claim 25, the prior art does not teach the claimed positioning arrangement in which the thermal-imaging camera and inductor are stationary relative to one another on a C bracket, and the C bracket is positioned relative to the connection point to maintain the opposite-side excitation and imaging relationship required by claim 23’s integrated inspection method. This arrangement preserves registration between the excitation field and observed head surface during positioning and promotes repeatable nondestructive inspection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571) 272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights