Lincoln Global, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2021

2021003229 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/493,569 04/21/2017 Badri K. Narayanan 2015-121-US-CIP 4975
141825 7590 10/22/2021
The Lincoln Electric Company
22801 Saint Clair Avenue
Legal Department
Cleveland, OH 44117
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
desiree_cunin@lincolnelectric.com
ginger_mcghee@lincolnelectric.com
ip@lincolnelectric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BADRI K. NARAYANAN, BRUCE JOHN CHANTRY, and
DAVID JOHN MUZILLA
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569
Technology Center 3700

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, and 13–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lincoln
Global, Inc., which is a subsidiary of The Lincoln Electric Company.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “controlling a heat input for a
weld or metal deposition process by monitoring thermal characteristics of a
weld environment.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 11 are independent, and
claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
11. A welding helmet, comprising:
a shell, having a filtered viewing window, configured to
be worn by a human welder to protect the human welder as the
human welder views a weld environment through the viewing
window during a welding operation performed by the human
welder using a welding system;
a thermal sensing device integrated with the shell and
configured to sense thermal energy of the weld environment
and generate thermal data based on the thermal energy during
the welding operation, wherein the weld environment includes a
workpiece, an electrode, and a weld puddle and wherein the
thermal data includes spatial thermal gradients and temporal
thermal gradients;
a thermal analysis module integrated with the shell,
operatively connected to the thermal sensing device, and
configured to analyze the thermal data to generate control
parameters; and
a transmitter device integrated with the shell, operatively
connected to the thermal analysis module, and configured to
transmit the control parameters to the welding system, wherein
the control parameters control at least one welding parameter of
the welding system during the welding operation.
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Normando US 3,370,151 Feb. 20, 1968
Kearney US 4,399,346 Aug. 16, 1983
Stava US 6,160,241 Dec. 12, 2000
Friedl US 6,734,393 B1 May 11, 2004
Kaufman US 2006/0131291 A1 June 22, 2006
Becker US 2009/0231423 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
Wills US 2012/0291172 A1 Nov. 22, 2012
Beeson US 2016/0207135 A1 July 21, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, and 17–19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson, Normando, Kearney,
and Wills.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beeson, Normando, Kearney, Wills, and Becker.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beeson, Normando, Kearney, Wills, and either Kaufman
or Stava.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Beeson, Normando, Kearney, Wills, and Friedl.
OPINION
Obviousness—Beeson, Normando, Kearney, and Wills
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 11 together. Appeal
Br. 15–17. In contesting the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8–10, 13,
14, and 17–19, Appellant relies solely on their dependence from claim 1 or
claim 11. Appeal Br. 17. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

4
of claim 11, and claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–10, 13, 14, and 17–19 stand or fall with
claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a
single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group
of claims argued together).
The Examiner finds that Beeson discloses a helmet substantially as
recited in claim 11, but that “Beeson does not explicitly show the thermal
data that includes spatial and temporal gradients.” Ans. 3–4. Relying on the
teachings of Normando, Kearney, and Wills, the Examiner determines it
would have been obvious “to adapt Beeson with the thermal sensing device
that senses the thermal data that includes the spatial and temporal thermal
gradients of the weld puddle that would further enable the user to monitor
and control the desired welding operations to predictably yield the desired
weld quality.” Ans. 4 (citing Normando, Fig. 3; Kearney, Fig. 4; Wills
¶¶ 14, 23–25).
Appellant argues that Normando and Kearney discuss/illustrate what
can be considered a spatial thermal gradient, but that neither says anything
about temporal thermal gradients. Appeal Br. 16 (citing Normando, Fig. 3;
Kearney, Fig. 4). Appellant additionally argues that “Wills is concerned
with spatial filtering and temporal filtering of correlated visual and infrared
image frames to form a combined dual spectrum image frame,” but “is not at
all concerned with generating data representing thermal gradients, either
spatial thermal gradients or temporal thermal gradients, let alone analyzing
thermal data (both the spatial and temporal thermal gradients) to generate
control parameters.” Appeal Br. 16. Further, Appellant disputes that “one
of ordinary skill in the art could be motivated by Normando, Kearney,
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

5
and/or Wills to make changes to Beeson that would result in the specific
combination of elements of” claim 11. Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner explains that “Normando and Kearney are applied to
show thermal gradients determined by thermal sensing devices wherein
Kearney further shows the sensing device with a spectral filter (40) that
filters the spectral/infrared radiation.” Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that the
teaching by Wills of a thermal sensing device having not only spectral
filtering but also temporal filtering for monitoring and measuring thermal
characteristics of a molten puddle indicates that “the thermal data regarding
a molten puddle would include not only the spatial thermal
gradients/characteristics but also the temporal thermal
gradients/characteristics.” Ans. 8.
To the extent that Appellant is arguing that the applied references do
not determine, or calculate, spatial thermal gradients or temporal thermal
gradients, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 11. For the reasons that follow, claim 11 does not positively recite
structure that determines, or calculates, spatial thermal gradients or temporal
thermal gradients, much less structure that analyzes calculated thermal
gradients to generate control parameters.
Claim 11 recites, in pertinent part, “a thermal sensing device . . .
configured to sense thermal energy of the weld environment and generate
thermal data based on the thermal energy during the welding operation, . . .
wherein the thermal data includes spatial thermal gradients and temporal
thermal gradients.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Claim 11 also recites “a
thermal analysis module . . . operatively connected to the thermal sensing
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

6
device, and configured to analyze the thermal data to generate control
parameters.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
Appellant’s Specification describes thermal sensing device 1515 as “a
thermal imaging device that is capable of sensing infrared wavelengths of
thermal energy” and “may include an infrared temperature device, a
thermography device, a thermal camera, a thermocouple device, a thermistor
device, a resistance temperature detector (RTD), among others.” Spec.
¶ 90.2 “The thermal data may be in the form of, for example, temperatures,
spatial thermal gradients, or temporal thermal gradients.” Spec. ¶ 90.
According to Appellant’s Specification, “the term ‘thermal data’ may refer
to the raw thermal data from the thermal sensing device 1515 or data that is
derived from the raw thermal data in some manner (e.g. pre-processed
thermal data).” Spec. ¶ 96. Figure 19 of the present application “illustrates
a graphical representation of an example embodiment of pre-processed
thermal data 1900 generated by the thermal sensing device 1515 . . . and pre-
processed by the thermal analysis module 1535.” Spec. ¶ 99. Appellant’s
Specification describes Figure 19 as follows:
The pre-processed thermal data 1900 shows various
temperature regions (as indicated by the different shaded
regions) over a portion of the surface of the workpiece 1570.
The various temperature regions were generated by the thermal
analysis module 1535 by applying pre-defined temperature
threshold ranges to temperature values of the pixels of the raw

2 Notably, The SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER in the
Appeal Brief maps the claimed “thermal sensing device” to “thermal sensing
device 1515” and cites paragraphs 89–90 of the Specification and Figures 16
and 17 as support. Appeal Br. 9; see also Appeal Br. 5 (mapping the
“thermal sensing device” of claim 1 similarly, but with reference to
Figures 15 and 16).
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

7
thermal temperature data out of the thermal sensing device
1515. Six (6) temperature regions are shown in FIG. 19 as six
different shaded regions.
Spec. ¶ 99.
By showing regions of the surface of the workpiece falling within
particular pre-defined temperature threshold ranges as shaded regions, the
graphic of Figure 19 shows spatial thermal gradients at a particular point in
time, and temporal thermal gradients would be reflected in successive
graphics of such pre-processed data at successive points in time.
Appellant’s Specification and claim 11 both define the “thermal
sensing device” and the “thermal analysis module” as distinct devices with
distinct functions, and claim 11 recites the “thermal sensing device,” not the
“thermal analysis module,” as the element that is configured to generate the
thermal data including spatial thermal gradients and temporal thermal
gradients. As discussed above, Appellant’s Specification describes the
“thermal sensing device” as generating raw data, and processing or
pre-processing of that raw thermal data is performed by the “thermal
analysis module.” The Specification does not disclose that the “thermal
sensing device” performs any processing or pre-processing of the thermal
data, much less that the “thermal sensing device” determines or calculates
spatial thermal gradients or temporal thermal gradients. In fact, we do not
find in Appellant’s Specification or drawings any express disclosure that
Appellant’s thermal analysis module 1535 determines or calculates
quantitative values for the temperature (thermal) gradients reflected in the
thermal data generated by Appellant’s thermal sensing device 1515, much
less any disclosure that thermal sensing device 1515 generates, calculates, or
otherwise determines spatial or temporal thermal gradient values. Rather,
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

8
one having ordinary skill in the art would more reasonably glean from
Appellant’s disclosure that Appellant’s “thermal sensing device” outputs, or
generates, temperature data, which may exhibit temperature/thermal
variations (i.e., gradients) over space (i.e., across the weld pool and surface
area of the work piece) and time.
In light of the above disclosure in Appellant’s Specification and
drawings of Appellant’s “thermal sensing device,” and consistent with the
ordinary and customary understanding within the art of the function of a
“thermal sensing device,” such as described in paragraph 90 of the
Specification, we construe “a thermal sensing device . . . configured to sense
thermal energy of the weld environment and generate thermal data based on
the thermal energy during the welding operation, . . . wherein the thermal
data includes spatial thermal gradients and temporal thermal gradients” in
claim 11 as encompassing a device that is capable of sensing thermal energy,
such as temperatures or heat radiation, and generating raw thermal data that
exhibits variations in thermal energy across the surface area (i.e., spatial
thermal gradients) and variations in thermal energy over time (i.e., temporal
thermal gradients). However, we do not construe this claim language as
requiring that values for the spatial thermal gradients or temporal thermal
gradients be determined or calculated, much less that the “thermal sensing
device” be configured to perform such calculations. With this claim
construction in mind, we turn to the prior art applied in the Examiner’s
rejection.
The Examiner finds that Beeson discloses, in a welding system, a
helmet including an integrated thermal sensing device (image sensor 416)
“that senses thermal energy of a welding environment including a
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

9
temperature of a weld joint/puddle [of] the workpiece.” Ans. 3 (citing
Beeson ¶¶ 64–67). Beeson’s processing circuitry 410 and 418 detects,
through processing of the pixel data of the image from image sensor 416,
welding parameters, such as local temperatures of the weld environment,
during the welding operation. Beeson ¶ 64. Stated differently, image sensor
416 generates thermal data based on the thermal energy during the welding
operation, as called for in claim 11. Further, Beeson’s circuitry 410 may
adjust welding settings of the weld system, such as voltage, current, wire
speed, etc., based on these parameters. Beeson ¶ 60.
The Examiner finds that Beeson does not explicitly disclose that the
thermal data generated includes spatial and temporal thermal gradients, and
relies on Normando, Kearney, and Wills to make up for this deficiency. See
Ans. 4. As explained in more detail below, Normando, Kearney, and Wills
are all instructive as to the typical thermal conditions to be found on the
surface of a workpiece during a welding operation, and, thus, are instructive
as to the temperature profile to be found in the images generated by
Beeson’s image sensor 416.
Figure 3 of Normando “shows an isothermal diagram typical of
conditions to be found upon the surface of a workpiece in which a weld is
being made by means of electrode 10 moving over the surface of the
workpiece.” Normando, col. 3, ll. 55–58. As Normando explains, and as
illustrated in Normando’s Figure 3, “[t]he temperature gradient ahead of the
electrode 10 is steeper than the temperature gradient behind the electrode, as
indicated by the shape of the isothermal loops.” Normando, col. 3, ll. 62–64.
This shows that the thermal data contained in images of the thermal
conditions of the weld area of the surface area of a workpiece, such as those
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

10
generated by Beeson’s image sensor 416, typically include spatial thermal
gradients. Normando adds that “[i]t will be understood that the whole
thermal pattern moves along the seam in substantially fixed spatial
relationship to the moving electrode 10.” Normando, col. 3, ll. 64–67. This
means that the local temperatures of the weld environment of the workpiece
will vary over time during the welding operation; in other words, the thermal
data includes temporal thermal gradients. Thus, as evidenced by the
aforementioned disclosure of Normando, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have expected that the thermal data from the pixel data of Beeson’s
images generated by image sensor 416 during the welding operation
includes both spatial thermal gradients and temporal thermal gradients.
Kearney discloses that “the measured peak temperature of the weld
bead varies as a function of the distance the temperature measurement is
taken laterally from the weld bead center line” and that “the measured peak
temperature of the weld bead varies as a function of the distance at which
the measurement is taken to the rear of the weld puddle.” Kearney, col. 4,
ll. 50–56 (referring to Figs. 3 and 4). Further, Figure 4 of Kearney, which
“plots the bead temperature distribution in degrees Fahrenheit as shown by
isothermal lines with respect to the lateral and rearward distances in inches
from the weld puddle,” shows that the temperature varies across the surface
area of the workpiece being welded with both lateral distance and rearward
distance from the weld puddle. Kearney, col. 3, ll. 54–57. In other words,
Kearney also shows that a typical temperature profile of the surface of the
welding region of a workpiece includes spatial thermal gradients during the
welding operation. This further reinforces that the thermal data from the
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

11
pixel data in the images generated by image sensor 416 of Beeson during a
welding operation would be expected to include spatial thermal gradients.
Wills discloses a dual-spectrum (DS) digital imaging welding helmet
provided with visible-spectrum (VS) digital camera 150 and
infrared-spectrum (IRS) digital camera 160 configured for simultaneously
generating raw VS real-time digital video image frames and raw IRS
real-time digital video image frames, respectively. Wills ¶ 16.
“[C]ameras 150 and 160 may provide either grayscale or color pixel
information.” Wills ¶ 16. The system of Wills also includes vision
engine 170, which receives raw VS and IRS real-time digital video image
frames from cameras 150 and 160, respectively, and processes the frames to
create DS real-time digital video image frames combining desired VS and
IRS image attributes from the respective VS and IRS image frames. Wills
¶ 17; see also Wills ¶ 34 (disclosing that “each pixel of each frame of the DS
real-time digital video image frames corresponds to [VS] information, [IRS]
information, or a blending of [VS] information and [IRS] information”).
Wills discloses that the system is configured to allow a user to select
an imaging parameter, such as a color map. Wills ¶ 23. For example, a user
may select a level of spatial filtering or smoothing or temporal filtering or
smoothing. Wills ¶ 23. Wills discloses IRS image processor 173 for
generating processed (or pre-processed) IRS video image frames from the
raw IRS video image frames to enhance the usable IRS information in the
video frames, such as certain thermal characteristics of the molten metal
puddle, and to remove unwanted information, such as background
temperature of the workpiece. Wills ¶ 25. IRS image processor 173 may
perform such image processing functions as spatial filtering, thresholding,
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

12
temporal filtering, spectral filtering, and color mapping, for example. Wills
¶ 25.
The Examiner finds that the teaching by Wills of providing temporal
filtering, in addition to spatial and spectral filtering, for monitoring and
measuring thermal characteristics of a molten puddle, suggests that “the
thermal data regarding a molten puddle would include not only the spatial
thermal gradients/characteristics but also the temporal thermal
gradients/characteristics.” Ans. 8. Appellant does not specifically contest
this finding, much less provide evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to
refute it.
In light of the above, the combined teachings of Beeson, Normando,
Kearney, and Wills support, by a preponderance of the evidence, a finding
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the thermal data
from the pixel data of Beeson’s images generated by image sensor 416
during the welding operation typically would include both spatial thermal
gradients and temporal thermal gradients. Thus, these references establish
the requisite factual basis and rational underpinning to support the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to provide
“Beeson with the thermal sensing device that senses the thermal data that
includes the spatial and temporal thermal gradients of the weld puddle that
would further enable the user to monitor and control the desired welding
operations to predictably yield the desired weld quality” (Ans. 4).
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 11 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11, and of
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

13
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–10, 13, 14, and 17–19, which fall with claim 11, as being
unpatentable over Beeson, Normando, Kearney, and Wills.
Obviousness— Beeson, Normando, Kearney, and Wills in view of any of
Becker, Kaufman, Stava, or Friedl
In contesting the rejections of dependent claims 5, 7, 15, 16, and 20,
Appellant relies solely on the arguments presented for independent claims 1
and 11, adding only that the additional references do not remedy the
purported deficiencies of Beeson, Normando, Kearney, and Wills. See
Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of any
deficiencies in the combination of Beeson, Normando, Kearney, and Wills
vis-à-vis claims 1 and 11, for the reasons discussed above, and, likewise, fail
to apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 5, 7, 15, 16, and 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 15 as being
unpatentable over Beeson, Normando, Kearney, Wills, and Becker; the
rejection of claims 7 and 16 as being unpatentable over Beeson, Normando,
Kearney, Wills, and either Kaufman or Stava; and the rejection of claim 20
as being unpatentable over Beeson, Normando, Kearney, Wills, and Friedl.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2021-003229
Application 15/493,569

14
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6, 8–
11, 13, 14,
17–19
103 Beeson,
Normando,
Kearney, Wills
1, 3, 4, 6, 8–
11, 13, 14,
17–19

5, 15 103 Beeson,
Normando,
Kearney, Wills,
Becker
5, 15
7, 16 103 Beeson,
Normando,
Kearney, Wills,
Kaufman
7, 16
7, 16 103 Beeson,
Normando,
Kearney, Wills,
Stava
7, 16
20 103 Beeson,
Normando,
Kearney, Wills,
Friedl
20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 13–
20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED