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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-6, 9-31, 34, 36-41, 44-45, 47, 50, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438) in view of Wada (JP2016221538) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1B of Raghavan
PNG
media_image2.png
608
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Raghavan
Regarding claim 1, Raghavan teaches a processing system (100) comprising:
an irradiation part (114) that is configured to irradiate an object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118)
a powder supply part (120) that is configured to supply powder (Pg. 7 lines 9-11 powder) to a melt pool formed by an irradiation of the energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 dispenser 120 to dispense successive layers 121 of feed material onto the platform 106, where energy delivery system 114 provides energy in a controlled manner to melt and fuse the feed material);
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified at least with a second light having a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool)
that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from the melt pool (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid);
an imaging apparatus (108, Fig. 1b) that is configured to optically receive at least a part of the first light (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions of the melt pool) and at least a part of a third light (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions that are illuminated by spectrophotometer 112 that may be cooled or solidified) from a part of the solidified part that is illuminated with the second light (Pg. 11 lines 15-25 imager 108 is an infrared image capture system, e.g., an infrared camera, that captures images indicative of temperature variation within a region 140 of the build area 122; where the first and third lights are taken to be infrared waves detected by infrared imager 108)
Raghavan is silent on a display apparatus that is configured to display, based on an output of the imaging apparatus, an image related to the melt pool and the solidified part; an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches a display apparatus (40) that is configured to display ([0014]operation panel 40 displays a captured image), based on an output of the imaging apparatus (30), an image related to the melt pool and the solidified part ([0016] camera 30 images the periphery of the workpiece 50 to be laser processed);
an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
Raghavan and Wada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding imaging. It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a display so that a user views a captured image and be able to supply further instruction based on the captured image (Wada [0016]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, wherein and Raghavan teaches an image output by the imaging apparatus has a difference between an intensity of the first light and an intensity of the third light that is equal to or smaller than an allowable value (Pg. 16 lines 10-20 The expected thermal map can be compared to the desired temperature map to generate an error signal, e.g., temperature differential map, where the first and third lights being received by imager 108 are taken to be at an intensity that does not generate an error signal).
Regarding claim 3, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but Raghavan is silent on further comprising a filter member that allows at least the part of the first light and at least the part of the third light from the part of the solidified part to pass therethrough, a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first and third lights being set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light optically received by the imaging apparatus and an intensity of the third light optically received by the imaging apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Wada
Wada teaches further comprising a filter member (33) that allows at least a part of the first light ([0029] plasma light 22b) and at least a part of the third light from a part of the solidified part ([0028]light from workpiece 50) to pass therethrough,
a transmittance of the filter member (33) with respect to the first and third lights being set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light optically received by the imaging apparatus and an intensity of the third light optically received by the imaging apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value ([0049-0053] 33, band pass filter, the transmissivity of the wave length band to allowable range of wave length is 770 (nm) to 850 (nm) Fig. 5, light from the workpiece 50 brought closer to light of laser and plasma light 22 a and 22 b, where plasma light 22b is the first light and light from the work piece is the third light).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a filter with a transmittance being set so that a difference between a first and third light received is equal or less than an allowable value so that the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but Raghavan teaches further comprising an illumination control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 is operably connected to the sensor system 102 and the energy delivery system 114) that is configured to control the illumination apparatus (Pg. 4 lines 30-31 sensor system 102 can also include a spectrophotometer 112) but silent on the illumination control apparatus being configured to control the illumination apparatus so that an intensity of the second light is higher as a brightness of an image part, which corresponds to the first light, of an image output by the imaging apparatus is higher.
Wada teaches the illumination control apparatus being configured to control the illumination apparatus so that an intensity of the second light is higher (31a) as a brightness of an image part, which corresponds to the first light (22b), of an image output by the imaging apparatus is higher ([0100] illuminating the workpiece 50 using the light 31a in the waveband between the laser light 22a and the plasma light 22b, where the intensity of light 31a corresponds to the brightness of plasma light 22b).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to control the intensity of the second light to be higher when the first light is higher so that the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but Raghavan teaches further comprising a processing control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 is operably connected to the sensor system 102 and the energy delivery system 114) that is configured to control a processing apparatus (114), which is configured to process the object, based on an output of the imaging apparatus (108, Pg. 16 lines 15-20At a high level, if an expected temperature at a location is less than the desired temperature at the location in the build area 122, heat supplied to the location can be increased. For example, a power of an infrared lamp directly above the location can be increased temperature. Conversely, if an expected temperature at a location is greater than the desired temperature at the location, the heat supplied can be decreased. For example, power to the corresponding infrared lamp can be decreased.)
Regarding claim 6, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but Raghavan teaches the processing control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 controlling 102, which includes melt pool monitor 110) is configured to determine a shape of the object based on an optical received result of the third light (Pg. 13 lines 25-31 properties detected by the melt pool monitor 110 can include one or more properties indicative of a geometry of the melt pool 153), and control the processing apparatus so that a difference between the shape of the object and a target shape of the object decreases (Pg. 178 lines 14-25 The measured dimension of the melt pool, e.g., as calculated by the controller 119 from the image from the melt pool monitoring system, can used as training data for the machine learning algorithm in the model and/or in the feedback system; where the feedback system is understood to reduce the difference between desired dimensions of the melt pool and actual dimensions).
Regarding claim 9, Raghavan teaches a processing system comprising (100):
an irradiation part (114) that is configured to irradiate an object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118)
a powder supply part (120) that is configured to supply powder (Pg. 7 lines 9-11 powder) to a melt pool formed by an irradiation of the energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 dispenser 120 to dispense successive layers 121 of feed material onto the platform 106, where energy delivery system 114 provides energy in a controlled manner to melt and fuse the feed material);
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate a part of a solidified part where with a second light (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool)
an imaging apparatus (108, Fig. 1b) that is configured to optically receive at least a part of the first light (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions of the melt pool) and at least a part of the third light (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions that are illuminated by spectrophotometer 112 that may be cooled or solidified);
Raghavan is silent on a filter member that allows at least a part of a first light emitted from the melt pool and at least a part of a third light from a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified to pass therethrough; a part of the third light that have passed through the filter member and a display apparatus that is configured to display, based on an output from the imaging apparatus, an image related to the melt pool and a part where the melt pool is solidified, an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]),
a filter member (33) that allows at least a part of a first light emitted from the melt pool ([0028] plasma light 22b) and at least a part of a third light from a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified to pass therethrough ([0028] light from workpiece 50); a part of the third light that have passed through the filter member ([0030] light from workpiece 50, pass through filter 33 in imaging apparatus 30)
a display apparatus (40) that is configured to display ([0017] operation panel 40 displays a captured image), based on an output of the imaging apparatus (30), an image related to the melt pool and the solidified part ([0017]camera 30 images the periphery of the workpiece 50 to be laser processed).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a filter member that allows a first and third light to pass through so that when an image is captured the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]) and to have a display so that a user view a captured image and be able to supply further instruction based on the captured image (Wada [0016]). It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Raghavan teaches a processing system comprising:
a processing apparatus (100) that is configured to process an object by irradiating the object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118)
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of the object at least with a second light in a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid);
a detection apparatus (108) that is configured to detect a light from a part of the object (Pg. 11 lines 10-25 region 140, thermal imager 108 detects light).
Raghavan is silent on a display apparatus that is configured to display, based on an output from the detection apparatus, an image related to the object illuminated with the second light, an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches a display apparatus (40) that is configured to display ([0017] operation panel 40 displays a captured image), based on an output from the detection apparatus (30), an image related to the object illuminated with the second light ([0017] camera 30 images the periphery of the workpiece 50 to be laser processed, related to the area illuminated by 31a),
an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a display so that a user views a captured image and be able to supply further instruction based on the captured image (Wada [0016]). It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 10, but Raghavan is silent on wherein the display apparatus is configured to display, based on the output from the detection apparatus, an image based on the first light emitted from the irradiated part of the object.
Wada teaches the display apparatus (40) is configured to display, based on the output from the detection apparatus (30), an image (P1) based on the first light (22b) from the irradiated part (50).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a display so that a user views a captured image and be able to supply further instruction based on the captured image (Wada [0016]).
Regarding claim 12, Raghavan teaches a processing system comprising:
a processing apparatus (100) that is configured to process an object by irradiating the object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118);
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of the object at least with a second light in a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid);
a detection apparatus (108) that is configured to detect a light from a part of the object (Pg. 11 lines 10-25 region 140, thermal imager 108 detects light).
Raghavan is silent on a display apparatus that is configured to display, based on an output from the detection apparatus, an image based on the first light from the irradiated part and an image related to the object illuminated with the second light, an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches a display apparatus (40) that is configured to display ([0017] operation panel 40 displays a captured image), based on an output of the imaging apparatus (30), an image related to the melt pool and the solidified part ([0017] camera 30 images the periphery of the workpiece 50 to be laser processed),
an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a display so that a user views a captured image and be able to supply further instruction based on the captured image (Wada [0016]). It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 11, and Raghavan teaches wherein the detection apparatus (108) is configured to detect the first light emitted from the irradiated part (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions of the melt pool) and detect a third light from the object that is illuminated with the second light (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions that are illuminated by spectrophotometer 112 that may be cooled or solidified).
Regarding claim 14, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 13, but Raghavan is silent on further comprising a filter member that allows the first light emitted and the third light to pass therethrough, the detection apparatus being configured to detect the first light from the irradiated part of the object and the third light from the object through the filter member.
Wada teaches further comprising a filter member (33) that allows the first light ([0029] plasma light 22b) and the third light to pass therethrough ([0028] light from workpiece 50),
the detection apparatus (30) being configured to detect the first light (22b) from the irradiated part (50) and the third light from the object ([0028] reflect light of workpiece 50) through the filter member (33).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a filter member that allows a first and third light to pass through so that when an image is captured the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 13, but Raghavan is silent on a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first light is lower than a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the third light.
Wada teaches a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first light is lower than a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the third light ( [0049-0053] 33, band pass filter, the transmissivity of the wave length band to allowable range of wave length is 770 (nm) to 850 (nm) Fig. 5, light from the workpiece 50 brought closer to light of laser and plasma light 22 a and 22 b, where plasma light 22b is the first light and light from the work piece is the third light).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first light be lower than a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the third light so that when an image is captured the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 13, but Raghavan is silent on wherein a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first and third lights is set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light detected by the detection apparatus and an intensity of the third light detected by the detection apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value.
Wada teaches a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first and third lights is set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light detected by the detection apparatus and an intensity of the third light detected by the detection apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value ( [0049-0053] 33, band pass filter, the transmissivity of the wave length band to allowable range of wave length is 770 (nm) to 850 (nm) Fig. 5, light from the workpiece 50 brought closer to light of laser and plasma light 22 a and 22 b, where plasma light 22b is the first light and light from the work piece is the third light).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first and third lights be set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light detected by the detection apparatus and an intensity of the third light detected by the detection apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value so that when an image is captured the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 10, and Raghavan teaches further comprising an illumination control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 is operably connected to the sensor system 102 and the energy delivery system 114) that is configured to control the illumination apparatus (112) based on a detected result of the first light (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool).
Regarding claim 18, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 13, but Raghavan is silent on further comprising an illumination control apparatus that is configured to control the illumination apparatus based on a detected result of the first light and a detected result of the third light.
Wada teaches further comprising an illumination control apparatus (30) that is configured to control the illumination apparatus (31a) based on a detected result of the first light (22b) and a detected result of the third light ([0051-0053] light reflected by the workpiece 50, adjusting light intensity of auxiliary light 31a top increase the amount of light reflects by workpiece 50).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to control the illumination apparatus based on a first and third light to improve the quality of the image received through an adjustment of light intensities (Wada [0054]).
Regarding claim 19, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 18, but Raghavan is silent on the illumination control apparatus is configured to control the illumination apparatus to increase an intensity of the second light when an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the first light is higher than an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the third light by a first predetermined value or more.
Wada teaches the illumination control apparatus (35) is configured to control the illumination apparatus (31a) to increase an intensity of the second light ([0058] turn on) when an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the first light is higher than an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the third light by a first predetermined value or more ([0058, 0102] turning on light source 31 when laser beam, 22a irradiates, taken to be a first light, the light from molten metal, is created, being brighter than a light from not molten metal).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to increase an intensity of a second light when a first light is brighter than a third light so that a camera may be able to receive an image of the workpiece while reducing the halation of the captured image (Wada [0102]).
Regarding claim 20, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 18, but Raghavan is silent on wherein the illumination control apparatus is configured to control the illumination apparatus to decrease an intensity of the second light when an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the first light is lower than an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the third light by a second predetermined value or more.
Wada teaches the illumination control apparatus (35) is configured to control the illumination apparatus (31a) to decrease an intensity of the second light when an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the first light is lower than an average brightness of an image part corresponding to the third light by a second predetermined value or more ([0058, 0102] turning off light source 31 when laser beam 22a does not irradiate, taken to be a first light, the light from molten metal, is not created, being brighter than a light from not molten metal).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to decrease an intensity of a second light when a first light is lower than a third light so that a camera may be able to receive an image of the workpiece while reducing the halation of the captured image (Wada [0102]).
Regarding claim 21, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 17, but Raghavan is silent on wherein the illumination control apparatus is configured to control the illumination apparatus so that an intensity of the second light is higher as a brightness of an image part corresponding to the first light is higher.
Wada teaches the illumination control apparatus (35) is configured to control the illumination apparatus (31a) so that an intensity of the second light is higher as a brightness of an image part corresponding to the first light is higher (31a is on).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to decrease an intensity of a second light when a first light is lower than a third light so that a camera may be able to receive an image of the workpiece while reducing the halation of the captured image (Wada [0102]).
Regarding claim 22, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 13, but Raghavan is silent on further comprising an illumination control apparatus that is configured to control the illumination apparatus based on a detected result of the third light.
Wada teaches further comprising an illumination control apparatus (35) that is configured to control the illumination apparatus (31a) based on a detected result of the third light (turning off light source 31 when laser beam 22a does not irradiate, taken to be a first light, the light from molten metal, is not created, being brighter than a light from not molten metal).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to control the illumination apparatus based on the third light so that a camera may be able to receive an image of the workpiece while reducing the halation of the captured image (Wada [0102]).
Regarding claim 23, Raghavan teaches a processing system comprising:
an irradiation apparatus that is configured to emit an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118);
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to perform an illumination of a part of an object with a second light having a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid); and
a light reception part (108) that is configured to optically receive a light from at least a part of an area of the object that is illuminated by the illumination apparatus at least (Pg. 11 lines 10-25 thermal imager 108 is an infrared image capture system, e.g., an infrared camera, that captures images indicative of temperature variation within a region 140 of the build area 122, Fig. 2).
Raghavan is silent on an illumination apparatus that is configured to perform an illumination of a part of an object with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to perform an illumination of a part of an object (50) with a second light in (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 24, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 23, and Raghavan teaches wherein
the area (140) that is illuminated by the illumination apparatus (108) includes at least one of the irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (132) and an area that is not irradiated with the energy beam (Fig. 2),
the light reception part (108) is configured to optically receive a light from at least one of the irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (132) and the area that is not irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 11 lines 10-25 thermal imager 108 is an infrared image capture system, e.g., an infrared camera, that captures images indicative of temperature variation within a region 140 of the build area 122, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 23, and Raghavan teaches
further comprising a powder supply member (120) that is configured to supply powder (powder) to a vicinity of an irradiation position of the energy beam (132, Fig.2),
the area (140) that is illuminated by the illumination apparatus including the powder (Fig. 2),
the light reception part (108) being configured to optically receive a light from the powder (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 23, and Raghavan teaches further comprising a powder supply member (120) that is configured to supply powder (powder) to a vicinity of an irradiation position of the energy beam (132, Fig.2),
the processing system performing an additive processing by using the energy beam and the powder (Pg. 3 lines 25-30 additive manufacturing processes).
Regarding claim 27, Raghavan teaches a processing system comprising:
a processing apparatus (100 that is configured to process an object by irradiating the object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118);
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of the object at least with a second light in a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid); and
a detection apparatus (108) that is configured to detect a light from a part of the object (Pg. 11 lines 10-25 region 140, thermal imager 108 detects light); and
the processing apparatus (100) being configured to process the object based on an information that is related to the object illuminated with the second light and that is detected by the detection apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10, Pg. 14 lines 1-12 controller 118 operates the energy delivery system 114 based on measurements of properties of the feed material, from the sensor system 102 provides measurements of temperature of the topmost layer 104 at a variety of different levels of resolution, where sensor system 102 includes spectrophotometer 112 which illuminates light and receives light).
Raghavan is silent on an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 28, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 27, and Raghavan teaches
the processing apparatus (100) is configured to process the object based on an information that is based on the first light emitted from the irradiated part of the object detected by the detection apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10, Pg. 14 lines 1-12 controller 118 operates the energy delivery system 114 based on measurements of properties of the feed material, from the sensor system 102 provides measurements of temperature of the topmost layer 104 at a variety of different levels of resolution, where sensor system 102 includes spectrophotometer 112 which illuminates light and receives light).
Regarding claim 29, Raghavan teaches a processing system comprising:
a processing apparatus (100) that is configured to process an object by irradiating the object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118);
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of the object at least with a second light in a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid); and
a detection apparatus (108) that is configured to detect a light from a part of the object (Pg. 11 lines 10-25 region 140, thermal imager 108 detects light); and
the processing apparatus (100) being configured to process the object based on an information that is based on the first light from the irradiated part detected by the detection apparatus and an information related to the object that is illuminated with the second light (Pg. 6 lines 1-10, Pg. 14 lines 1-12 controller 118 operates the energy delivery system 114 based on measurements of properties of the feed material, from the sensor system 102 provides measurements of temperature of the topmost layer 104 at a variety of different levels of resolution, where sensor system 102 includes spectrophotometer 112 which illuminates light and receives light).
Raghavan is silent on an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 30, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 28, and Raghavan teaches wherein
the detection apparatus (108) configured to detect the first light emitted from the irradiated part of the object (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions of the melt pool) and detect a third light from the object that is illuminated with the second light (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions that are illuminated by spectrophotometer 112 that may be cooled or solidified).
Regarding claim 31, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 30, and Raghavan teaches
further comprising a processing control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 is operably connected to the sensor system 102 and the energy delivery system 114) that is configured to control the processing apparatus (114) based on a detected result by the detection apparatus (108).
Regarding claim 34, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 31, and Raghavan teaches the processing control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 119 controlling 102, which includes melt pool monitor 110) is configured to determine a shape of the object based on a detected result of the third light (Pg. 13 lines 25-31 properties detected by the melt pool monitor 110 can include one or more properties indicative of a geometry of the melt pool 153), and set a processing condition of the processing apparatus so that a difference between the shape of the object and a target shape of the object decreases (Pg. 17 lines 14-25 The measured dimension of the melt pool, e.g., as calculated by the controller 119 from the image from the melt pool monitoring system, can used as training data for the machine learning algorithm in the model and/or in the feedback system; where the feedback system is understood to reduce the difference between desired dimensions of the melt pool and actual dimensions).
Regarding claim 36, Raghavan teaches the processing system according to claim 31, but is silent on wherein the processing control apparatus includes: a position determination apparatus that is configured to determine a position from which the first light is emitted; and a use-range determination apparatus that is configured to determine a range of use of the third light based on the position determined by the position determination apparatus, the processing control apparatus is configured to set a processing condition of the processing apparatus based on the third light used by the use-range determination apparatus.
PNG
media_image4.png
472
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Wada
Wada teaches the processing control apparatus includes:
a position determination apparatus (41) that is configured to determine a position from which the first light is emitted ([0075] determine temperature at a plurality of positions of metal powder 23a, able to determine position of the first light, being from a molten metal, based on the temperature received) ; and
a use-range determination apparatus (42) that is configured to determine a range of use of the third light based on the position determined by the position determination apparatus (Fig. 7B [0071] movement of metal powder 23a along trajectory Q21, the reflected light from metal power 23a, being the third light, is used to determine a temperature and speed of the deposited powder),
the processing control apparatus is configured to set a processing condition of the processing apparatus based on the third light used by the use-range determination apparatus (Fig. 7B [0068] movement of metal powder 23a along trajectory Q21 to estimate speed and temperature, to control the camera 30).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to determine positions from which a first light and a third light based that sets a processing condition so that the controller may estimate the temperature of the metal powder at a plurality of positions to create a temperature map and determine a trajectory and movement of the powder during deposition (Wada [0068-0071]).
Regarding claim 37, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 36, and Raghavan teaches further comprising a movement apparatus (135) that is configured to move a position of the irradiated part of the object (Pg. 9 line 15-20), but is silent on the use-range determination apparatus being configured to determine the range of use of the third light based on a moving direction of the position of the irradiated part of the object by the movement apparatus and the position determined by the position determination apparatus.
Wada teaches the use-range determination apparatus (user 70 using monitor 42) being configured to determine the range of use of the third light based on a moving direction of the position of the irradiated part of the object by the movement apparatus and the position determined by the position determination apparatus (Fig. 7B movement of metal powder 23a along trajectory Q21, the reflected light from metal power 23a, being the third light, is used to determine a temperature and speed of the deposited powder).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to determine the third light based on a position of the irradiated part so that the controller may estimate the temperature of the metal powder at a plurality of positions to create a temperature map and determine a trajectory and movement of the powder during deposition (Wada [0068-0071]).
Regarding claim 38, Raghavan teaches a processing system comprising:
a processing apparatus including an irradiation part (114) that is configured to irradiate an object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118) and a powder supply part (120) that is configured to supply powder to a melt pool formed by an irradiation of the energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 dispenser 120 to dispense successive layers 121 of feed material onto the platform 106, where energy delivery system 114 provides energy in a controlled manner to melt and fuse the feed material);
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of the object at least with a second light in a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid); and
an imaging apparatus (30) that is configured to optically receive at least a part of the first light (22b) and at least a part of the third light (reflect light of workpiece 50) that have passed through the filter member (33).
Raghavan is silent on a filter member that allows at least a part of the first light and at least a part of a third light from a part of the solidified part that is illuminated with the second light to pass therethrough; a display apparatus that is configured to display, based on an output of the imaging apparatus, an image related to the melt pool and the solidified part, a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first light being lower than a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the third light, an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches a filter member (33) that allows at least a part of the first light (plasma light 22b) and at least a part of a third light from a part of the solidified part that is illuminated with the second light to pass therethrough (light from workpiece 50, illuminated by 31a);
a display apparatus (40) that is configured to display ([0017]operation panel 40 displays a captured image), based on an output of the imaging apparatus (30), an image related to the melt pool and the solidified part ([0017] camera 30 images the periphery of the workpiece 50 to be laser processed),
a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first light is lower than a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the third light ( [0049-0053] 33, band pass filter, the transmissivity of the wave length band to allowable range of wave length is 770 (nm) to 850 (nm) Fig. 5, light from the workpiece 50 brought closer to light of laser and plasma light 22 a and 22 b, where plasma light 22b is the first light and light from the work piece is the third light),
an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a display so that a user view a captured image and be able to supply further instruction based on the captured image (Wada [0016]) and to have a filter and a transmittance of the filter have a lower transmittance with respect to the first light than the third light so that when an image is captured the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]). It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 39, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 38, but Raghavan is silent on wherein the transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first and third lights is set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light optically received by the imaging apparatus and an intensity of the third light optically received by the imaging apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value.
Wada teaches the transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first and third lights is set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light optically received by the imaging apparatus and an intensity of the third light optically received by the imaging apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value t ( [0049-0053] 33, band pass filter, the transmissivity of the wave length band to allowable range of wave length is 770 (nm) to 850 (nm) Fig. 5, light from the workpiece 50 brought closer to light of laser and plasma light 22 a and 22 b, where plasma light 22b is the first light and light from the work piece is the third light).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a transmittance of the filter member with respect to the first and third lights be set so that a difference between an intensity of the first light detected by the detection apparatus and an intensity of the third light detected by the detection apparatus is equal to or smaller than an allowable value so that when an image is captured the influence of light of auxiliary light sources may be reduced in order to improve the quality of the captured image of the workpiece (Wada [0054]).
Regarding claim 40, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 38, and Raghavan teaches further comprising a processing control apparatus (119) that is configured to control the processing apparatus (100) based on the output of the imaging apparatus (108, Pg. 16 lines 10-20 thermal map).
Regarding claim 41, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 40, and Raghavan teaches the processing control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 119 controlling 102, which includes melt pool monitor 110) is configured to determine a shape of the object based on an optical received result of the third light (Pg. 13 lines 25-31 properties detected by the melt pool monitor 110 can include one or more properties indicative of a geometry of the melt pool 153), and control the processing apparatus so that a difference between the shape of the object and a target shape of the object decreases (Pg. 17 lines 14-25 The measured dimension of the melt pool, e.g., as calculated by the controller 119 from the image from the melt pool monitoring system, can used as training data for the machine learning algorithm in the model and/or in the feedback system; where the feedback system is understood to reduce the difference between desired dimensions of the melt pool and actual dimensions).
Regarding claim 44, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 38, and Raghavan teaches further comprising an illumination control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 is operably connected to the sensor system 102 and the energy delivery system 114) that is configured to control the illumination apparatus based on an optical received result of the first life (Pg. 4 lines 30-31 sensor system 102 can also include a spectrophotometer 112),
the illumination control apparatus being configured to control the illumination apparatus so that an intensity of the second light is higher (31a) as a brightness of an image part, which corresponds to the first light (22b), of an image obtained from the output of the imaging apparatus is higher ([0100] illuminating the workpiece 50 using the light 31a in the waveband between the laser light 22a and the plasma light 22b, where the intensity of light 31a corresponds to the brightness of plasma light 22b).
Regarding claim 45, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 38, and Raghavan teaches further comprising a movement apparatus (135) that is configured to move a position of an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 9 line 15-20), but is silent on a range of the third light that is used to set a processing condition of the processing apparatus is determined based on a moving direction of the position of the irradiated part by the movement apparatus and a position from which the first light is emitted.
Wada teaches a range of the third light that is used to set a processing condition of the processing apparatus is determined based on a moving direction of the position of the irradiated part of the object by the movement apparatus and a position from which the first light is emitted (Fig. 7B movement of metal powder 23a along trajectory Q21, the reflected light from metal power 23a, being the third light, is used to determine a temperature and speed of the deposited powder).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have a range of the third light be used as a processing condition so that the controller may estimate the temperature of the metal powder at a plurality of positions to create a temperature map and determine a trajectory and movement of the powder during deposition (Wada [0068-0071]).
Regarding claim 47, Raghavan teaches A processing system comprising: a processing apparatus including an irradiation part (114) that is configured to irradiate an object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118) and a powder supply part (120) that is configured to supply powder to a melt pool formed by an irradiation of the energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 dispenser 120 to dispense successive layers 121 of feed material onto the platform 106, where energy delivery system 114 provides energy in a controlled manner to melt and fuse the feed material)
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of the object at least with a second light in a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid); and
an imaging apparatus (30) that is configured to optically receive at least a part of the first light (22b) and at least a part of the third light (reflect light of workpiece 50) that that is illuminated with the second light
an illumination control apparatus (Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 is operably connected to the sensor system 102 and the energy delivery system 114) that is configured to control the illumination apparatus based on an optical received result of the first light by the imaging apparatus (Pg. 4 lines 30-31 sensor system 102 can also include a spectrophotometer 112), the illumination control apparatus being configured to control the illumination apparatus so that an intensity of the second light is higher (31a) as a brightness of an image part, which corresponds to the first light (22b), of an image obtained from the output of the imaging apparatus is higher ([0100] illuminating the workpiece 50 using the light 31a in the waveband between the laser light 22a and the plasma light 22b, where the intensity of light 31a corresponds to the brightness of plasma light 22b).
Raghavan is silent on an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Regarding claim 50, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but Raghavan is silent on wherein a state where the wavelength range of the second light is different from the wavelength range of the first light includes a state where a peak wavelength of the second light is different from a wavelength included in a wavelength range part of the wavelength range of the first light in which an intensity of the first light is higher than a predetermined threshold value
Wada teaches a state where the wavelength range of the second light (31a, C3 Fig, 5) is different from the wavelength range of the first light (22b Fig. 5 C2) includes a state where a peak wavelength of the second light is different from a peak wavelength of the first light (Fig. 5 [0048] peak wavelength of C2 being 680nm and peak wavelength of 808nm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Wada to have different peak wavelengths for the first and second lights such that the light received for imaging may be differentiated when received at by an imaging device and quality of the captured image may be increase (Wada [0051]).
Regarding claim 52, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 10, and Raghavan teaches the first light emitted from the irradiated part of the object includes a light emitted from a melt pool that is formed at the irradiated part of the object by an irradiation of the energy beam (Fig. 1b region 140 being detected by imager 108 includes portions of the melt pool)
Claims 7 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438) in view of Wada (JP2016221538) as applied to claims 1 and 40 above, and further in view of Cheverton (US20160114431).
Regarding claims 7 and 42, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claims 5 and 40, but are silent on wherein the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to keep a size of the melt pool constant based on an optical received result of the first light.
Cheverton teaches the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to keep a size of the melt pool constant based on an optical received result of the first light (Fig. 5 [0054-0056] optical melt pool size, being based off of a first light emitted by the melt pool, maintain or adjust build parameters 72 based on detected size).
Raghavan, Wada, and Cheverton are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding imaging. It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Wada to incorporate the teachings of Cheverton to control the processing apparatus to have a constant melt pool based on light received so that a desired physical property of the component being made is achieved in real time (Cheverton [0006]).
Claims 8 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438) in view of Wada (JP2016221538) as applied to claims 1 and 40 above, and further in view of Cai (US20080314878).
Regarding claims 8 and 43, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claims 5 and 40, but are silent on the processing control apparatus is configured to set a target value of a size of the melt pool based on an optical received result of the third light,
the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to process the object by forming the melt pool having a size that is equal to the set target value based on an optical received result of the first light.
Cai teaches the processing control apparatus is configured to set a target value of a size of the melt pool based on an optical received result of the third light ([0022, 0025-0031] target values 66, including melt pool width, established by parametric model 68, and based on real time measurements from images, where it is understood that cameras 30 and 28 receive light from portions of the melt pool and portions not in the melt pool, which is the third light)
the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to process the object by forming the melt pool having a size that is equal to the set target value based on an optical received result of the first light ([0024] a controller 40 that is configured to control the process parameters of the laser net-shape machining system 10 based upon the estimated and target values of the parameters associated with the manufacture or repair of the object 22).
Raghavan, Wada, and Cai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding imaging. It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Wada to incorporate the teachings of Cai to set a target size of the melt pool based on a third light and form the melt pool according to the target value so that the desired shape and size of the object may be achieved accurately based on estimated and targeted values (Cai [0005]).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438) in view of Wada (JP2016221538) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Yoneda (JP2009125790) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 32, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 31, but are silent on the processing control apparatus is configured to use a detected result of the first light for a first use application and use a detected result of the third light for a second use application that is different from the first use application.
Yoneda teaches the processing control apparatus (6 having imagers 2A, 2B) is configured to use a detected result of the first light for a first use application ([0014] 2A receives image of arc A and molten pool B; for use of imaging generation state of the arc A and the state of the molten pool B) and use a detected result of the third light for a second use application that is different from the first use application ([0015] 2B receives image of welded bead C and planned welding line D, for pick up images of the shape of the bead and intended weld line).
Raghavan, Wada, and Yoneda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding imaging. It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Wada to incorporate the teachings of Yoneda to use a first light for a first application and a third light for a second application so that welding conditions may be obtained separately for a state of molten metal and a bead shape after welding in order to perform appropriate welding (Yoneda [0002]).
Regarding claim 33, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 31, but are silent on wherein the processing control apparatus is configured to set a processing condition of the processing apparatus based on a detected result of the third light, the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus based on a detected result of the first light so that the processing apparatus processes the object by using the set processing condition.
Yoneda teaches the processing control apparatus (6) is configured to set a processing condition of the processing apparatus based on a detected result of the third light ([0017] using images from camera 2B to set a common reference point, where camera 2B detects light from welded bead C and welding line D),
the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus based on a detected result of the first light so that the processing apparatus processes the object by using the set processing condition ([0017] using images from camera 2A to set a common reference point, where camera 2A detects light from arc A and the state of the molten pool B).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Yoneda and Wada to set a processing condition based on a first light and a third light for a second application so that welding conditions may be obtained separately for a state of molten metal and a bead shape after welding in order to perform appropriate welding (Yoneda [0002]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438), Wada (JP2016221538), and Yoneda (JP2009125790) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Cai (US20080314878).
Regarding claim 35, Raghavan, Wada, and Yoneda teach the processing system according to claim 33, wherein and Raghavan teaches the processing apparatus is configured to form a melt pool at the irradiated part by irradiating the object with the energy beam ((Pg. 6 lines 1-10 controller 119 can cause the energy source 118 to selectively deliver energy to voxel, being the melt pool), but is silent on the processing control apparatus is configured to set, as the processing condition, a target value of a size of the melt pool based on the detected result of the third light, the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to process the object by forming the melt pool having a size that is equal to the set target value based on a detected result of the first light.
Cai teaches the processing control apparatus is configured to set, as the processing condition, a target value of a size of the melt pool based on the detected result of the third light ([0022, 0025-0031] target values 66, including melt pool width, established by parametric model 68, and based on real time measurements from images, where it is understood that cameras 30 and 28 receive light from portions of the melt pool and portions not in the melt pool, which is the third light)
the processing control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to process the object by forming the melt pool having a size that is equal to the set target value based on a detected result of the first light ([0024] a controller 40 that is configured to control the process parameters of the laser net-shape machining system 10 based upon the estimated and target values of the parameters associated with the manufacture or repair of the object 22).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan, Wada, and Yoneda to incorporate the teachings of Cai to set a target size of the melt pool based on a third light and form the melt pool according to the target value so that the desired shape and size of the object may be achieved accurately based on estimated and targeted values (Cai [0005]).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438) in view of Cai (US20080314878) further in view of Wada (JP2016221538) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 46, Raghavan teaches A processing system comprising:
a processing apparatus including an irradiation part (114) that is configured to irradiate an object with an energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 energy delivery system 114 is configured to deliver energy from energy source 118) and a powder supply part (120) that is configured to supply powder to a melt pool formed by an irradiation of the energy beam (Pg. 6 lines 20-25 dispenser 120 to dispense successive layers 121 of feed material onto the platform 106, where energy delivery system 114 provides energy in a controlled manner to melt and fuse the feed material)
an illumination apparatus (112) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a wavelength range (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 Fig. 1b spectrophotometer 112 is an infrared spectrophotometer that emits an infrared light toward a portion of the feed material; where the spectrophotometer 112 emits a light at an infrared wavelength in region 140, which includes portions of a solidified melt pool and not solidified melt pool) that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object that is irradiated with the energy beam (Pg. 14 lines 1-15 as the feed material in the region 154 cools, optical wavelengths detectable by the spectrophotometer 112 vary, where an optical wavelength detectable by the spectrophotometer is taken to be a first light, which has a wavelength that is different at different times of cooling, taken to be from molten to solid); and
an imaging apparatus (30) that is configured to optically receive at least a part of the first light (22b) and at least a part of the third light (reflect light of workpiece 50) that is illuminated with the second light; and
a processing control apparatus (119) that is configured to control the processing apparatus (100) based on the output of the imaging apparatus (108, Pg. 16 lines 10-20 thermal map).
Raghavan is silent on the processing control apparatus being configured to set a target value of a size of the melt pool based on an optical received result of the third light, the processing control apparatus being configured to control the processing apparatus to process the object by forming the melt pool having a size that is equal to the set target value based on an optical received result of the first light, an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Cai teaches the processing control apparatus being configured to set a target value of a size of the melt pool based on an optical received result of the third light ([0022, 0025-0031] target values 66, including melt pool width, established by parametric model 68, and based on real time measurements from images, where it is understood that cameras 30 and 28 receive light from portions of the melt pool and portions not in the melt pool, which is the third light)
the processing control apparatus being configured to control the processing apparatus to process the object by forming the melt pool having a size that is equal to the set target value based on an optical received result of the first light ([0024] a controller 40 that is configured to control the process parameters of the laser net-shape machining system 10 based upon the estimated and target values of the parameters associated with the manufacture or repair of the object 22).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan to incorporate the teachings of Cai to set a target size of the melt pool based on a third light and form the melt pool according to the target value so that the desired shape and size of the object may be achieved accurately based on estimated and targeted values (Cai [0005]).
Raghavan and Cai are silent on an illumination apparatus that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part where the melt pool is solidified with a second light in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam.
Wada teaches an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Cai to incorporate the teachings of Wada to illuminate a portion of the solidified part in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam in order to be able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Claims 48, 49, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438) in view of Wada (JP2016221538) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toyserkani (US7043330).
Regarding claim 48, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but are silent on the second light includes a visible light.
Toyserkani teaches the second light includes a visible light (Col. 6 lines 30-40 the processing zone illuminated by a halogen light 38).
Raghavan, Wada, and Toyserkani are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding imaging. It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Wada to incorporate the teachings of Toyserkani to have a visible light so that detectors are able to detect more accurately the boundaries of the welding area (Toyserkani Col. 6 lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 49, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but are silent on the second light includes a light component in a wavelength range that is shorter than the wavelength range of the first light.
Toyserkani teaches the second light includes a light component in a wavelength range that is shorter than the wavelength range of the first light (Col. 6 lines 45-67 CCD camera 20 with size of ⅓″ includes an interference filter 42 with bandwidth of 500–700 nm plus a neutral filter 44 with natural density (ND), where CCD receives light at the wavelength of 500 - 700nm which is longer than the wavelength of a halogen light).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Wada to incorporate the teachings of Toyserkani to have the second light be a shorter wavelength than the first light as the shorter wavelength light is a visible light which allows detectors to be able to detect more accurately the boundaries of the welding area (Toyserkani Col. 6 lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 51, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but are silent on a state where the wavelength range of the second light is different from the wavelength range of the first light includes a state where a peak wavelength of the second light is different from a wavelength included in a wavelength range part of the wavelength range of the first light in which an intensity of the first light is higher than a predetermined threshold value.
Toyserkani teaches a state where the wavelength range of the second light (38) is different from the wavelength range of the first light (Col. 6 lines 45-67 light received at CCD 20) includes a state where a peak wavelength of the second light (38) is different from a wavelength included in a wavelength range part of the wavelength range of the first light (Col. 6 lines 45-67 light received at CCD 20) in which an intensity of the first light (Col. 6 lines 45-67 light received at CCD 20) is higher than a predetermined threshold value (Col. 6 lines 45-67 bandwidth of 500–700 nm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Wada to incorporate the teachings of Toyserkani to have the second light have a different peak wavelength than that of a first light, so that the second light also has a shorter wavelength than the first light as the shorter wavelength light is a visible light which allows detectors to be able to detect more accurately the boundaries of the welding area (Toyserkani Col. 6 lines 30-40).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (WO2019217438) in view of Wada (JP2016221538) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smalley (US20190224916).
Regarding claim 53, Raghavan and Wada teach the processing system according to claim 1, but are silent on the second light is a blue light.
Smalley teaches the second light is a blue light (second light sources 1104 may include a red laser, a green laser, and a blue laser.)
Raghavan, Wada, and Smalley are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding imaging. It would have been obvious to have modified Raghavan and Wada to incorporate the teachings of Smalley to have blue light in order to be able to illuminate the object in with a light that allows a full spectrum of visible light to be achieved (Smalley [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the previously cited art does not teach the amended limitation of independent claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 23, 27, 29, 46, and 47, Wada is found to teach the amended limitations, where Wada teaches an illumination apparatus ([0055] 31) that is configured to illuminate at least a part of a solidified part (50) where the melt pool is solidified with a second light (22a, 22b) in a period during which the part of the object is being irradiated with the energy beam ([0055]) for the purposes of being able to receive an image that is not warped by the influence of the light from the energy beam (Wada [0055]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/4/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761