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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended.
Claim 2 was previously canceled.
Claim 4 has been canceled.
Claims 5-6 have been added.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth objection under 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
Applicant's amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 3; however, Applicant's amendment introduces new rejections, described below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. In this case, reference ISO 11146-1:2021(en) is listed in the specification [paras. 0014, 19, 79, 84], a copy was not submitted to the office, and thus has not been considered. An attempt was made on 3/3/2026 to obtain the document ISO 11146-1:2021, but was unsuccessful due to the cost exceeding a spending limit.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “ofprocess” in para. 0003. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show corresponding structures for: obtaining, establishing/obtaining, substituting/combining, controlling/performing, optimizing/inputting/retaining/discarding/verifying, controlling/optimizing, and monitoring, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “where and are maximum and minimum center point linear energy under an empirical condition” in line 52 should include qmin and qmax, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1, which begins “A welding method for pore inhibition in high-power laser shaping welding based on optimized process parameters, comprising: …”:
the limitation “process parameters” is used by the claims to include laser power, welding speed, and point-ring laser power ratio [para. 0013], wherein the point-ring laser power ratio is the ratio of the power of the center point Gaussian beam and the outer annular beam [para. 0036].
the step of “obtaining” in “obtaining a relationship between an adjustable annular laser beam diameter and a first welding process parameter comprising point-ring laser power ratio, and obtaining a relationship between center point linear energy and a second process parameter comprising laser power and welding speed” is being interpreted as any structure capable of utilizing a known and conventional industry standard to quantify/describe the annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy in a laser welding process, e.g., a testing system including a conventional computer, with corresponding software, configured according to a known industry standard [e.g., ISO 11146-1:2021; para. 0014], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
the limitation “programmable spot fiber laser” in “wherein the adjustable annular laser beam is emitted by a programmable spot fiber laser” is being interpreted as a CFX-8kW programmable spot fiber laser from nLIGHT Laser, and equivalents thereof [para. 00103].
the step of “establishing/obtaining” in “establishing optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy; and obtaining preset ranges of the process parameters; and” is being interpreted as any structure capable of calculating/obtaining solutions from equations/formulas [paras. 0024-29], e.g., a computer, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
the limitation “optimization constraint conditions” is used by the claims to mean the known and conventional practice of recognizing that a welding process is dictated by the typical value or range of values of relevant parameters for the given application [i.e., the variables in the above “obtaining” step (beam diameter, center point linear energy, welding process parameters), and that said values are constrained by the details of the given application, i.e., laser beam/emitter properties/settings and material properties/dimensions of, e.g., test samples in a testing method from an ISO standard; paras. 0024-29], wherein the calculated solutions (i.e., constraint conditions) include ranges of acceptable values (i.e., a range of values that would still satisfy, e.g., the formulas from an ISO testing method).
the step of “substituting/combining” in “substituting process parameter values within the preset ranges into the optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy, and then combining the process parameters that simultaneously satisfy the optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy as optimized process parameters; and” is being interpreted as any structure capable of solving for a specific variable (i.e., a particular variable as the “optimized” process parameter from the previous steps) by entering variables into, and resolving, related formulas (i.e., the constraint conditions established according to, e.g., ISO 11146-1:2021,; para. 0030) using, e.g., a computer, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
the limitation “process parameter values” is used by the claim to mean the conventional practice of selecting a particular test value within the theoretically appropriate ranges (i.e., values from the previous establishing/obtaining step that satisfy at least one of the constraint conditions) and using the inherent relationship between the beam diameter/center point linear energy, to check if the selected value also satisfies the other constraint conditions [i.e., the conventional practice of, given a known variable, solving for multiple other related variables using multiple functions].
the step of “controlling/performing” in “controlling laser energy distribution and the process parameters based on the optimized process parameters, and performing welding on a workpiece via the programmable spot fiber laser;” is being interpreted any structure capable of controlling a programmable spot fiber laser [i.e., the conventional practice of using predetermined process parameters in a laser welding process, e.g., using test values of a parameter to verify that the test value performs appropriately] using, e.g., a computer and input device arranged as a laser controller, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
the step of “obtaining” in “obtaining a reference ISO 11146-1:2021(en) standard for the relationship between the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the process parameters, for any spot laser beam” is being interpreted as any structure capable of purchasing and reading reference ISO 11146-1:2021(en) [i.e., the conventional practice of using and incorporating a known industry standard], e.g., a computer and input device, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
In order to avoid any possible 112 issues (e.g., with regards to beam diameter, gaussian beam, target penetration, collimation coefficient, focus imaging ratio, an optimization constraint condition, etc.), the limitations in lines 21-51 of claim 1 are being interpreted as indicating the inherent relationships in the “obtaining” step and the constraint conditions in the “establishing/obtaining” and “substituting/combining” steps, including any corresponding inherent material properties/dimensions, laser properties, as the relevant variables used therein [paras. 0013-30].
the limitation “an empirical condition” in “where and are maximum and minimum center point linear energy under an empirical condition” is used by the claim to mean the preset range of the “substituting/combining” step (i.e., that the upper and lower bounds are established from details of the given application, e.g., wherein the minimum and maximum linear energy corresponds to minimum and maximum possible energies capable of being output by a given laser (as limited by laser power and welding speed) in an actual welding process; paras. 0021-23, 27-29)
Claim 3,
the limitation “working interval” in “the preset ranges of the process parameters are obtained according to a working interval of each parameter of a welding system or process requirements;” is used by the claim to mean that the range of values of each process parameter is determined from an actual welding process (i.e., that the test values correspond to the inherent limitations of values for the parameters, e.g., wherein the minimum and maximum center point linear energies correspond to minimum and maximum possible energies capable of being output by a given laser (as limited by laser power and welding speed) in an actual welding process; paras. 0021-23, 27-29)
the step of “optimizing/inputting/retaining/discarding/verifying” in “wherein in the method for optimizing the process parameters… the process parameter values are input into the optimization constraint conditions, the process parameters are retained when they simultaneously satisfy the optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy, otherwise they are discarded, and the next group of process parameters are verified” is being interpreted as any structure capable of inputting variables into formulas/equations (e.g., inputting relevant test values into the formulas/equations of the “establishing/obtaining” step), not saving the parameters that fail to satisfy the formulas/equations, saving the passing parameters, and repeating the process by selecting another unverified test value, with, e.g., a computer and input device with memory, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
Claim 5,
the step of “controlling/optimizing” in “wherein the controlling the laser energy distribution and the process parameters based on the optimized process parameters comprises optimizing the laser power, the welding speed, and the point-ring laser power ratio.” is being interpreted as any structure capable of solving for an optimized value of a variable described by corresponding equations/formulas [i.e., the conventional practice of using formulas describing variables to optimize a particular variable, e.g., such that it is maximized, minimized, or approaches a specific value, wherein the optimized value is correspondingly used to control a laser] with, e.g., a computer and input device, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
Claim 6,
the step of “monitoring” in “further comprising monitoring the process parameters and a shape of the weld seam in real-time in the welding process.” is being interpreted as any structure capable of evaluating a welding process by observing welding parameters and a weld seam shape during an actual welding process [i.e., the conventional practice of analyzing weld seam shape in response to applied test values of process parameters; para. 0068-72], with, e.g., a computer with corresponding software and sensors, since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure, see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
Applicant may:
a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1,
the recitation of “obtaining” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV. In this case, it seems the claims/description merely describe the conventional practice of utilizing a known industry standard to quantify variables in a given welding process so as to establish an index with which to compare test results from experimentation, in order to optimize said process by iteratively adjusting conventional welding process parameters.
the recitation of “establishing/obtaining” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and thus fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
the recitation of “substituting/combining” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and thus fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
the recitation of “controlling/performing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and thus fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
the recitation of “obtaining” in “obtaining a reference ISO 11146-1:2021(en) standard for the relationship between the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the process parameters, for any spot laser beam” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and thus fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Regarding claim 3,
the recitation of “optimizing/inputting/retaining/discarding/verifying” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and thus fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Regarding claim 5,
the recitation of “controlling/optimizing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and thus fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Regarding claim 6,
the recitation of “monitoring” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and thus fails to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are also rejected because of dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 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.
Regarding claim 1,
the recitation of “obtaining” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
the recitation of “establishing/obtaining” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
the recitation of “substituting/combining” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
the recitation of “controlling/performing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
the recitation of “obtaining” in “obtaining a reference ISO 11146-1:2021(en) standard for the relationship between the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the process parameters, for any spot laser beam” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3,
the recitation of “optimizing/inputting/retaining/discarding/verifying” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
the limitation “the next group of process parameters” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 5,
the recitation of “controlling/optimizing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 6,
the recitation of “monitoring” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
the limitation “the welding process” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 6 as referring to the welding on a workpiece recited in the “controlling/performing” step of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are also rejected because of dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea (mental process of ***) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
the claims are directed to statutory subject matter as claim 1 recites a welding method for pore inhibition in high-power laser shaping welding based on optimized process parameters;
wherein the recited steps of claim 1 are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper [i.e., the claims describe the common practice of using basic tools of scientific and technological work, e.g., formulas/equations to describe a process, calculating/solving said formulas/equations using real-world values to arrive at theoretical results, and verifying theoretical results in an actual application of the process; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)].
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the steps of claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a testing system. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a system does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “controlling/performing welding on a workpiece” amount to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry [e.g., using known industry standards and creating indexes of relevant qualities so as to evaluate theoretical values], specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In this case, theoretical values of process parameters are calculated, used, then evaluated, discarding values of process parameters with undesirable results and retaining values with desirable results.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 5-6,
the limitations of the claims further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Since the dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception of the mental process of claim 1 into a practical application, and in view of corresponding 112(a), 112(b), and 103 rejections of claims 3 and 5-6 presented below, Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 3 and 5-6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording [e.g., limitations directed at basic tools of scientific and technological work, mental processes, and mathematical algorithms], it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker (US 20240253156 A1) in view of Liu (US 20180221988 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Bocksrocker discloses:
A welding method for pore inhibition in high-power laser shaping welding based on optimized process parameters [i.e., a method for laser welding of a workpiece, wherein an annular beam is adjusted to minimize pores; para. 0024: “According to some embodiments of the invention, it is provided to select differently the splitting of the laser energy between a core fraction and a ring fraction for the laser welding of at least two components of different material onto a common base part. By varying the splitting of the laser power between a core fraction and a ring fraction, it is possible to vary or adjust the effective spot size of the welding laser beam on the surface of the workpiece that respectively faces toward the laser beam. The spot size may thereby be adjusted to the situations in the various welding zones, or to the various components, and in particular to their different materials. At the same time, the intensity profile of the (overall) laser beam is also varied, or adjusted, during the processing. Both may be used to optimize the quality of the laser welding on the various welding zones, or on the various components, and in particular to minimize splatter and pores.”], comprising:
obtaining a relationship between an adjustable annular laser beam diameter and a first welding process parameter comprising point-ring laser power ratio, and obtaining a relationship between center point linear energy and a second process parameter comprising laser power and welding speed [laser power/energy of the outer annular ring and the inner circular core, sizes of the outer annular ring and the inner circular core, welding speed, are known and conventional relevant variables/process parameters; paras. 0003, 20-27]; wherein the adjustable annular laser beam is emitted by a programmable spot fiber laser [a laser module with a variable splitting device; paras. 0041, 44];
establishing optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy; and obtaining preset ranges of the process parameters [i.e., preferable ranges of diameters and power/energy; paras. 0046-49, 91-97, 100]; and
substituting process parameter values within the preset ranges into the optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy, and then combining the process parameters that simultaneously satisfy the optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy as optimized process parameters [i.e., values for process parameters according to the preferable ranges are selected such that the quality of the laser welding is optimized, specifically minimizing splatter and pores; para. 0024]; and
controlling laser energy distribution and the process parameters based on the optimized process parameters, and performing welding on a workpiece via the programmable spot fiber laser [para. 0009];
However, although Bocksrocker discloses selecting parameters of an adjustable annular laser beam so as control an intensity distribution [e.g., figs. 4a, 4b; ], in order to optimize a welding process, Bocksrocker does not explicitly disclose incorporating reference ISO 11146-1:2021(en) into the welding method, specifically, Bocksrocker does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 1, lines 21-52 (“obtaining a reference… where and are maximum and minimum center point linear energy under an empirical condition”).
Liu, in the same field of endeavor of optimizing an annular laser process [paras. 0002-4; para. 0075: “To achieve low divergence, it is desirable to control or optimize the intensity distribution of the pulsed laser beam to reduce diffraction. Pulsed laser beams may be non-diffracting or weakly diffracting. Weakly diffracting laser beams include quasi-non-diffracting laser beams. Representative weakly diffracting laser beams include Bessel beams, Gauss-Bessel beams, Airy beams, Weber beams, and Mathieu beams.”], teaches better describing the laser beam [para. 0080: “Non-diffracting or quasi non-diffracting beams generally have complicated intensity profiles, such as those that decrease non-monotonically vs. radius.”] by utilizing various conventional tools, principles, and mathematical algorithms [e.g., ISO 11146-1:2005(E); paras. 0059-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the contents of reference ISO 11146-1:2021(en) into Bocksrocker’s method of selecting optimized process parameters, such that the laser beam is better described according to the reference, since Liu teaches incorporating a reference obviously facilitates the calculation of relevant process parameters [paras. 0059-80], wherein it would have been a simple matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of lines 21-52, e.g., by selecting an updated version of the reference, and/or by conventional mathematical manipulation of known formulas/equations in the art/reference, as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to optimize a specific process parameter.
Regarding claim 3, Bocksrocker in view of Liu discloses the welding method for pore inhibition in high-power laser shaping welding based on optimized process parameters according to claim 1.
Bocksrocker as modified by Liu also discloses:
wherein in the method for optimizing the process parameters for the pore inhibition in the high-power laser shaping welding, the preset ranges of the process parameters are obtained according to a working interval of each parameter of a welding system or process requirements [i.e., Bocksrocker discloses an actual welding process; para. 0009]; and
the process parameter values are input into the optimization constraint conditions, the process parameters are retained when they simultaneously satisfy the optimization constraint conditions for the adjustable annular laser beam diameter and the center point linear energy, otherwise they are discarded, and the next group of process parameters are verified [i.e., only using values that satisfy the given conditions in the actual welding process].
Regarding claim 5, Bocksrocker in view of Liu discloses the welding method for pore inhibition in high-power laser shaping welding based on optimized process parameters according to claim 1.
Bocksrocker as modified by Liu also discloses:
wherein the controlling the laser energy distribution and the process parameters based on the optimized process parameters comprises optimizing the laser power, the welding speed, and the point-ring laser power ratio [i.e., Bocksrocker discloses the importance of laser energy distribution in a welding process, wherein the ratio of power/size of the outer annular ring relative to the inner core and welding speed are process parameters selected so as inhibit pore formation, and further wherein it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize said process parameters through routine experimentation since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art; MPEP 2144.05II.].
Regarding claim 6, Bocksrocker in view of Liu discloses the welding method for pore inhibition in high-power laser shaping welding based on optimized process parameters according to claim 1.
Bocksrocker as modified by Liu also discloses:
further comprising monitoring the process parameters and a shape of the weld seam in real-time in the welding process [i.e., the conventional practice of measuring relevant variables in a welding process; Bocksrocker discloses measuring a diameter of the laser beam (para. 0046); Liu discloses that the reference describes the conventional practice of measuring the process parameters (paras. 0060-80)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761