DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 15 April 2026. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8-20 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, and 7 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 10, filed 7 April 2026, with respect to objected claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 7 April 2026. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-11, filed 7 April 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 7 April 2026. The rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 11-14, filed 7 April 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5, 11-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely the prior art reference of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0087634 A1 (Beacham) applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 stand objected to and claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the punctuation error of “:” at the end of line 13. Suggested claim language: “;”.
Claim 19 includes an extra space between “keep” and “the” in line 9.
Claim 20 includes an extra space between “keep” and “the” in line 10.
Claim 20 includes the punctuation error of “;” at the end of line 14. Suggested claim language: “,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0024243 A1 (hereinafter Suh) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0316368 A1 (hereinafter Morita) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0003553 A1 (hereinafter Nishi) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0106306 A1 (hereinafter Bodduluri).
As per claim 1, Suh substantially teaches the applicant’s claimed invention. Suh teaches the limitations of an additive processing device that models a workpiece by melting a supplied powder material and forming layers of the melted powder material, the additive processing device comprising:
a laser head (Fig. 1, element 406 and 414 of Fig. 1, element 401; i.e. beam condensing apparatus and concentric powder-feeding nozzle of a laser generator (e.g. CO2 laser)) configured to supply the powder material to the workpiece and irradiate the workpiece with a laser beam (pg. 3, par. [0045] and [0046]; i.e. [0046]: “A concentric powder-feeding nozzle 414 is situated under the beam condensing apparatus 406 to feed powder fed from a cladding material feeder 404, preferably a powder-feeding system, to a molten pool.)”;
a camera (Fig. 4, element 407) provided such that an optical axis (Fig. 7A) of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head (pg. 4, par. [0057] and [0066]; i.e. [0066]: “FIG. 7(A) is a view showing a molten pool observed in the optical axis of a laser beam.”);
one or more control circuits (pg. 4, par. [0053] and Fig. 4, element 403; i.e. a control system); and
the one or more control circuits (i.e. the control system) to cause the additive processing device (pg. 3, par. [0044] and [0053]; i.e. [0053]: “The control system 403 controls and monitors in real time all apparatuses constituting the laser-aided direct metal manufacturing system of the present invention and including the laser generator 401, the transfer system 402, the cladding material feeder 404, the gas control system 412 and the cooling apparatus 410.”) to:
recognize a height of the workpiece in a laminating direction while the laser head is forming an N-th layer (N being a natural number) of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal, and the calculated values are transmitted to the control system 403 in the form of ASCII data in real time.”);
control the laser head (pg. 5, par. [0076], [0077], and [0080]; i.e. [0076]: “The control system 403 controls process parameters in real time so as to form a cladding layer having a shape and a thickness (height) corresponding to 2D sectional information on the basis of sectional shaping information received in real time from the CAD/CAM apparatus 409 and the height data of the molten pool received in real time from the image processing apparatus 408.” and [0080]: “Although in the present invention the laser power is controlled as one of the control parameters, it is possible to control other process parameters such as the powder-feeding rate and the traverse speed of the specimen (or laser beam) in a similar way in real time.”);
cause (per Fig. 4, element 403; i.e. the control system) the additive processing device (pg. 3, par. [0044] and [0053]; i.e. [0053]: “The control system 403 controls and monitors in real time all apparatuses constituting the laser-aided direct metal manufacturing system of the present invention and including the laser generator 401, the transfer system 402, the cladding material feeder 404, the gas control system 412 and the cooling apparatus 410.”) to:
specify a position of a melt pool of the powder material in an image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 4, par. [0060]; i.e. “… in order to obtain the image of the molten pool 203 in real time, there is employed a high-speed, black and white CCD camera that can obtain images of 50 frames/second in progressive scan mode. This CCD camera 601 obtains the image of the molten pool 203 every 20 msec and transmits image information to the image processing apparatus 408. In order to obtain the images of the molten pool 203 at a higher speed, a high-speed CCD camera of 150 frames/sec or more can be employed.”), and
recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction based on the position of the melt pool in the image (pg. 4, par. [0061]; i.e. “… the image processing apparatus 408 calculates the physical position and height of the molten pool using an image processing technique, and transmits calculated data to the control system 403 in real time.”).
Not explicitly taught are a drive mechanism configured to drive the laser head;
an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ, the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ;
an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ;
one or more control circuits; and
the one or more storage storing instructions that are executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to:
estimate a height of the workpiece in formation of an N+1-th layer based on the recognized height of the N-th layer,
acquire a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece,
acquire an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to the laminating direction,
generate a drive path for the laser head for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection, and
control the drive mechanism based on the drive path.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a drive mechanism (Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. a head drive device) configured to drive a laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030] and [0034]; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.” and [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”);
one or more control circuits (pg. 3, par. [0044], pg. 4, par. [0049] and [0056], Fig. 1, elements 1 and 110, Fig. 2, element 110, and Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. a CPU (Central Processing Unit), [0044]: “The control device 1 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 41 executing various types of processing, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 42 including a data storage area, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 43 that is a nonvolatile memory, an external storage device 44, and an input/output interface 45 that inputs and outputs information to and from the control device 1.”, [0049]: “The functions of the control device 1 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the additive manufacturing device 100. The processing circuit is a single circuit, a complex circuit, a programmed processor, a parallel-programmed processor, an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), or a combination thereof. The functions of the control device 1 may be partially implemented by hardware, while being partially implemented by software or firmware.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”); and
one or more storage Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. ROM) storing instructions that are executed by the one or more control circuits (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045] and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”) to cause an additive processing device (pg. 2, par. [0028] and Fig. 1, element 100; i.e. an additive manufacturing device and [0056]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”) to:
generate a drive path for the laser head (pg. 4, par. [0050] and pg. 7, par. [0099]; i.e. “Next, at Step S150, the machining-path generation unit 113 generates a second machining path by correcting the formation sequence of a plurality of reference line beads in the first machining path obtained at Step S140 in accordance with the additive manufacturing method explained in the first embodiment described above.”), and
control the drive mechanism based on the drive path (pg. 3, par. [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099]; i.e. [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of a drive mechanism configured to drive a laser head; one or more control circuits; and one or more storage storing instructions that are executed by the one or more control circuits to cause an additive processing device to: generate a drive path for the laser head; and control the drive mechanism based on the drive path to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ, the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ;
an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ; and
the one or more control circuits, cause the additive processing device to:
estimate a height of the workpiece in formation of an N+1-th layer based on the recognized height of the N-th layer,
acquires a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece,
acquire an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to the laminating direction, and
generate a drive path for the laser head for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection.
However Nishi, in an analogous art of three-dimensional fabrication systems (pg. 1, par. [0019]), teaches the missing limitations of estimate (i.e. predicts) a height of a workpiece in formation of an N+1-th layer based on a recognized height of a N-th layer (pgs. 3-4, par. [0054]-[0057]; i.e. [0054]: “The predicting unit 380 executes simulation on the variation of the height Z as illustrated in FIGS. 4A to 4C, using fabrication data for fabricating the measurement object, to obtain a probable image.” and [0057]: “The three-dimensional data calculation unit 390 calculates three-dimensional data (actual height data) of the measurement object using the corrected measurement data.”),
acquire a three-dimensional model (i.e. a shape of a three-dimensional object) expressing a completed shape of the workpiece (pg. 2, par. [0025]-[0027] and pgs. 3-4, par. [0054]; i.e. [0025]: “… the fabricating apparatus 100 further includes a shape sensor 130 to measure the shape of a fabrication layer during fabrication or the shape of a three-dimensional object after fabrication.”),
acquire an outline (e.g. parameters of a shape of the three-dimensional object to be fabricated and dimension and height of each fabrication layer) of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to a laminating direction (pg. 4, par. [0060]; i.e. “The correcting unit 360 corrects fabrication data for fabricating a three-dimensional object. For example, the correcting unit 360 can correct the fabrication data so that the fabricating operation performed by the fabrication-device control unit 330 is changed according to the difference compared by the comparing unit 350. Here, changing the fabricating operation indicates changing of parameters and algorithms included in the fabrication data. Examples of the parameters and algorithms include the shape of the three-dimensional object to be fabricated, the dimension and height of each fabrication layer …”), and
generate a drive path for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection (pg. 3, par. [0047] and pg. 4, par. [0059] and [0060]; i.e. [0047]: “The fabrication-device control unit 330 controls an operation of fabricating a three-dimensional object with the fabrication device 206 according to the fabrication data. The fabrication-device control unit 330 adjusts the position of the head 110 and the height of the stage 120 according to the fabrication data so that the fabrication-device control unit 330 can fabricate the three-dimensional object while controlling various parameters, such as the fabrication speed and the lamination pitch, and algorithms.” and [0060]: “… the correcting unit 360 can correct the fabrication data so that the fabricating operation performed by the fabrication-device control unit 330 is changed according to the difference compared by the comparing unit 350. Here, changing the fabricating operation indicates changing of parameters and algorithms included in the fabrication data.”) for the purpose of fabricating a three-dimensional object (pgs. 1-2, par. [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita to include the addition of the limitations of estimate a height of a workpiece in formation of an N+1-th layer based on a recognized height of a N-th layer, acquire a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece, acquire an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to a laminating direction, and generate a drive path for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection to inexpensively and easily achieve high precision in fabricating a three-dimensional object (Nishi: pg. 5, par. [0071]).
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ, the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ;
an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ.
However Bodduluri, in an analogous art of a robotic arm with an imaging device (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 3, par. [0048]), teaches the missing limitations of an optical axis of a camera (Fig. 1, element 28) intersects an optical axis of a laser head (Fig .1, element 30) at a fixed acute angle ϴ (pg. 4, par. [0047] and [0048], pg. 5, par. [0058] and [0062], and pg. 6, par. [0068]; i.e. [0057]: “… when using a stereo pair of cameras, e.g., camera pair 28 in FIG. 1, the respective optical axes (and camera frames) of the cameras are typically not installed or maintained in parallel, but are slightly verged, e.g., about 10 degrees, which may be compensated for through known image processing techniques.”, [0062]: “After the robotics system 25 has been initiated and calibrated so that the camera frame is aligned with the tool frame (described above in conjunction with FIG. 4), image data is acquired and processed by the system computer to identify objects of interest in the camera frame.”, and [0068]: “It will also be appreciated that, rather than a coring harvesting tool, such as tool 40, another type of hair removal end-effecter tool may be employed, such as, e.g., a laser.”), the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ (pg. 3, par. [0047] and [0048]; i.e. [0048]: “… movement of the robotic arm 27 is governed by a system controller (not shown), in response to control signals derived from image data acquired by a pair of "stereo" cameras 28 attached to the distal end of the robotic arm (proximate the end-effecter assembly 30). In alternate embodiments, only a single camera need be used for image acquisition.”); and
an arm (Fig. 1, element 27; i.e. robotic arm) provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ (pg. 3, par. [0047] and [0048], pg. 4, par. [0057], pg. 6, par. [0068]; i.e. [0048]: “… movement of the robotic arm 27 is governed by a system controller (not shown), in response to control signals derived from image data acquired by a pair of "stereo" cameras 28 attached to the distal end of the robotic arm (proximate the end-effecter assembly 30). In alternate embodiments, only a single camera need be used for image acquisition.” and [0057]: “… when using a stereo pair of cameras, e.g., camera pair 28 in FIG. 1, the respective optical axes (and camera frames) of the cameras are typically not installed or maintained in parallel, but are slightly verged, e.g., about 10 degrees, which may be compensated for through known image processing techniques.” and [0068]: “It will also be appreciated that, rather than a coring harvesting tool, such as tool 40, another type of hair removal end-effecter tool may be employed, such as, e.g., a laser. ”) for the purpose of performing various procedures with a robotic arm (pg. 3, par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi to include the addition of the limitations of an optical axis of a camera intersects an optical axis of a laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ, the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ; and an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ to rapidly and precisely position a respective tool or assembly at a desired location (Bodduluri: pg. 3, par. [0031]).
As per claim 5, Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to generate the drive path based on a line of intersection between the three-dimensional model, the first plane, and a second plane group made up of planes that are parallel with the laminating direction and separated by an interval.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) cause the additive processing device (pg. 3, par. [0043] and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”) to generate the drive path based on a line of intersection between the three-dimensional model, the first plane (Fig. 14, element 51a), and a second plane group made up of planes (Fig. 14, element 51b-51f) that are parallel with a laminating direction and separated by an interval (pg. 7, par. [0096]-[0098]; i.e. [0096]: “FIG. 13 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a manufacturing-target shape that is represented by the CAD data 120 and is to be processed by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2. FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of divided layers that are obtained after division by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2.”, [0097]: “The machining-path generation unit 113 extracts bead formation surfaces 51as, 51bs, 51cs, 51ds, 51es, and 51fs individually from the respective divided-layer shapes of the divided layers 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d, 51e, and 51f.”; and [0098]: “Next, at Step S140, the machining-path generation unit 113 generates a machining path for the reference-line-bead additive machining to individually form each of the divided layers obtained at Step S130.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitation of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to generate the drive path based on a line of intersection between a three-dimensional model, a first plane, and a second plane group made up of planes that are parallel with a laminating direction and separated by an interval to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 8, Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits causing the additive processing device to generate the drive path based on a line of intersection between the three-dimensional model, the first plane, and a second plane group made up of planes that are parallel with the laminating direction and separated by an interval.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) causing the additive processing device (pg. 3, par. [0043] and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”) to generate the drive path based on a line of intersection between the three-dimensional model, the first plane (Fig. 14, element 51a), and a second plane group made up of planes (Fig. 14, element 51b-51f) that are parallel with a laminating direction and separated by an interval (pg. 7, par. [0096]-[0098]; i.e. [0096]: “FIG. 13 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a manufacturing-target shape that is represented by the CAD data 120 and is to be processed by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2. FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of divided layers that are obtained after division by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2.”, [0097]: “The machining-path generation unit 113 extracts bead formation surfaces 51as, 51bs, 51cs, 51ds, 51es, and 51fs individually from the respective divided-layer shapes of the divided layers 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d, 51e, and 51f.”; and [0098]: “Next, at Step S140, the machining-path generation unit 113 generates a machining path for the reference-line-bead additive machining to individually form each of the divided layers obtained at Step S130.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitation of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits causing the additive processing device to generate the drive path based on a line of intersection between a three-dimensional model, a first plane, and a second plane group made up of planes that are parallel with a laminating direction and separated by an interval to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 19, Suh substantially teaches the applicant’s claimed invention. Suh teaches the limitations of a method for controlling an additive processing device (Fig. 1, element 401; i.e. a laser generator (e.g. CO2 laser)) that models a workpiece by melting a supplied powder material and forming layers of the melted powder material (pg. 1, par. [0009] and pg. 3, par. [0045] and [0046] and pg. 4, par. [0053]),
the additive processing device (Fig. 1, element 401; i.e. the laser generator (e.g. CO2 laser)) including
a laser head (Fig. 1, element 406 and 414 of Fig. 1, element 401; i.e. beam condensing apparatus and concentric powder-feeding nozzle of the laser generator) configured to supply the powder material to the workpiece and irradiate the workpiece with a laser beam (pg. 3, par. [0045] and [0046]; i.e. [0046]: “A concentric powder-feeding nozzle 414 is situated under the beam condensing apparatus 406 to feed powder fed from a cladding material feeder 404, preferably a powder-feeding system, to a molten pool.”), and
a camera (Fig. 4, element 407) provided such that an optical axis (Fig. 7A) of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head (pg. 4, par. [0057] and [0066]; i.e. [0066]: “FIG. 7(A) is a view showing a molten pool observed in the optical axis of a laser beam.”),
the method comprising:
recognizing a height of the workpiece in a laminating direction while the laser head is forming an N-th layer (N being a natural number) of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”);
controlling the laser head (pg. 5, par. [0076], [0077], and [0080]; i.e. [0076]: “The control system 403 controls process parameters in real time so as to form a cladding layer having a shape and a thickness (height) corresponding to 2D sectional information on the basis of sectional shaping information received in real time from the CAD/CAM apparatus 409 and the height data of the molten pool received in real time from the image processing apparatus 408.” and [0080]: “Although in the present invention the laser power is controlled as one of the control parameters, it is possible to control other process parameters such as the powder-feeding rate and the traverse speed of the specimen (or laser beam) in a similar way in real time.”);
specifying a position of a melt pool of the powder material in an image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 4, par. [0060]; i.e. “… in order to obtain the image of the molten pool 203 in real time, there is employed a high-speed, black and white CCD camera that can obtain images of 50 frames/second in progressive scan mode. This CCD camera 601 obtains the image of the molten pool 203 every 20 msec and transmits image information to the image processing apparatus 408. In order to obtain the images of the molten pool 203 at a higher speed, a high-speed CCD camera of 150 frames/sec or more can be employed.”), and
recognizing the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction based on the position of the melt pool in the image (pg. 4, par. [0061]; i.e. “… the image processing apparatus 408 calculates the physical position and height of the molten pool using an image processing technique, and transmits calculated data to the control system 403 in real time.”).
Not explicitly taught are an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ;
a drive mechanism configured to drive the laser head,
the method comprising:
estimating a height of the workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on the recognized height of the N-th layer,
acquiring a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece,
acquiring an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to the laminating direction,
generating a drive path for the laser head for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection; and
controlling the drive mechanism based on the drive path to move the laser head in conjunction with the camera.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a drive mechanism (Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. a head drive device) configured to drive a laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030] and [0034]; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.” and [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”), and
a method comprising steps of:
generating a drive path for the laser head (pg. 4, par. [0050] and pg. 7, par. [0099]; i.e. “Next, at Step S150, the machining-path generation unit 113 generates a second machining path by correcting the formation sequence of a plurality of reference line beads in the first machining path obtained at Step S140 in accordance with the additive manufacturing method explained in the first embodiment described above.”); and
controlling the drive mechanism based on the drive path (pg. 3, par. [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099]; i.e. [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of a drive mechanism configured to drive a laser head, a method: generating a drive path for the laser head; and controlling the drive mechanism based on the drive path to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ;
estimating a height of the workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on the recognized height of the N-th layer,
acquiring a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece,
acquiring an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to the laminating direction,
generating a drive path for the laser head for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece, based on the outline of an intersection; and
move the laser head in conjunction with the camera.
However Nishi, in an analogous art of three-dimensional fabrication systems (pg. 1, par. [0019]), teaches the missing limitations of estimating (i.e. predicts) a height of a workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on a recognized height of a N-th layer (pgs. 3-4, par. [0054]-[0057]; i.e. [0054]: “The predicting unit 380 executes simulation on the variation of the height Z as illustrated in FIGS. 4A to 4C, using fabrication data for fabricating the measurement object, to obtain a probable image.” and [0057]: “The three-dimensional data calculation unit 390 calculates three-dimensional data (actual height data) of the measurement object using the corrected measurement data.”),
acquiring a three-dimensional model (i.e. a shape of a three-dimensional object) expressing a completed shape of the workpiece (pg. 2, par. [0025]-[0027] and pgs. 3-4, par. [0054]; i.e. [0025]: “… the fabricating apparatus 100 further includes a shape sensor 130 to measure the shape of a fabrication layer during fabrication or the shape of a three-dimensional object after fabrication.”),
acquiring an outline (e.g. parameters of a shape of the three-dimensional object to be fabricated and dimension and height of each fabrication layer) of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to a laminating direction (pg. 4, par. [0060]; i.e. “The correcting unit 360 corrects fabrication data for fabricating a three-dimensional object. For example, the correcting unit 360 can correct the fabrication data so that the fabricating operation performed by the fabrication-device control unit 330 is changed according to the difference compared by the comparing unit 350. Here, changing the fabricating operation indicates changing of parameters and algorithms included in the fabrication data. Examples of the parameters and algorithms include the shape of the three-dimensional object to be fabricated, the dimension and height of each fabrication layer …”), and
generating a drive path for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece, based on the outline of an intersection (pg. 3, par. [0047] and pg. 4, par. [0059] and [0060]; i.e. [0047]: “The fabrication-device control unit 330 controls an operation of fabricating a three-dimensional object with the fabrication device 206 according to the fabrication data. The fabrication-device control unit 330 adjusts the position of the head 110 and the height of the stage 120 according to the fabrication data so that the fabrication-device control unit 330 can fabricate the three-dimensional object while controlling various parameters, such as the fabrication speed and the lamination pitch, and algorithms.” and [0060]: “… the correcting unit 360 can correct the fabrication data so that the fabricating operation performed by the fabrication-device control unit 330 is changed according to the difference compared by the comparing unit 350. Here, changing the fabricating operation indicates changing of parameters and algorithms included in the fabrication data.”) for the purpose of fabricating a three-dimensional object (pgs. 1-2, par. [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita to include the addition of the limitations of estimating a height of a workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on a recognized height of a N-th layer, acquiring a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece, acquiring an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to a laminating direction, and generating a drive path for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece, based on the outline of an intersection to inexpensively and easily achieve high precision in fabricating a three-dimensional object (Nishi: pg. 5, par. [0071]).
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ; and
move the laser head in conjunction with the camera.
However Bodduluri, in an analogous art of a robotic arm with an imaging device (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 3, par. [0048]), teaches the missing limitations of an optical axis of a camera (Fig. 1, element 28) intersects an optical axis of a laser head (Fig .1, element 30) at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ (pg. 4, par. [0047] and [0048], pg. 5, par. [0058] and [0062], and pg. 6, par. [0068]; i.e. [0057]: “… when using a stereo pair of cameras, e.g., camera pair 28 in FIG. 1, the respective optical axes (and camera frames) of the cameras are typically not installed or maintained in parallel, but are slightly verged, e.g., about 10 degrees, which may be compensated for through known image processing techniques.”, [0062]: “After the robotics system 25 has been initiated and calibrated so that the camera frame is aligned with the tool frame (described above in conjunction with FIG. 4), image data is acquired and processed by the system computer to identify objects of interest in the camera frame.”, and [0068]: “It will also be appreciated that, rather than a coring harvesting tool, such as tool 40, another type of hair removal end-effecter tool may be employed, such as, e.g., a laser.”), an arm (Fig. 1, element 27; i.e. robotic arm) provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ (pg. 3, par. [0047] and [0048], pg. 4, par. [0057], pg. 6, par. [0068]; i.e. [0048]: “… movement of the robotic arm 27 is governed by a system controller (not shown), in response to control signals derived from image data acquired by a pair of "stereo" cameras 28 attached to the distal end of the robotic arm (proximate the end-effecter assembly 30). In alternate embodiments, only a single camera need be used for image acquisition.” and [0057]: “… when using a stereo pair of cameras, e.g., camera pair 28 in FIG. 1, the respective optical axes (and camera frames) of the cameras are typically not installed or maintained in parallel, but are slightly verged, e.g., about 10 degrees, which may be compensated for through known image processing techniques.” and [0068]: “It will also be appreciated that, rather than a coring harvesting tool, such as tool 40, another type of hair removal end-effecter tool may be employed, such as, e.g., a laser. ”); and
move the laser head in conjunction with the camera (pg. 3, par. [0047] and [0048]; i.e. [0048]: “… movement of the robotic arm 27 is governed by a system controller (not shown), in response to control signals derived from image data acquired by a pair of "stereo" cameras 28 attached to the distal end of the robotic arm (proximate the end-effecter assembly 30). In alternate embodiments, only a single camera need be used for image acquisition.”) for the purpose of performing various procedures with a robotic arm (pg. 3, par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi to include the addition of the limitations of an optical axis of a camera intersects an optical axis of a laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ; and move the laser head in conjunction with the camera to rapidly and precisely position a respective tool or assembly at a desired location (Bodduluri: pg. 3, par. [0031]).
As per claim 20, Suh substantially teaches the applicant’s claimed invention. Suh teaches the limitations of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a control program, executed by one or more control circuits (pg. 4, par. [0053] and Fig. 4, element 403; i.e. a control system), that controls an additive processing device (Fig. 1, element 401; i.e. a laser generator (e.g. CO2 laser)) that models a workpiece by melting a supplied powder material and forming layers of the melted powder material (pg. 1, par. [0009] and pg. 3, par. [0045] and [0046] and pg. 4, par. [0053] and Fig. 4, element 403; i.e. a Personal Computer-Numeric Control (PC-Nc) System),
the additive processing device (Fig. 1, element 401; i.e. the laser generator (e.g. CO2 laser)) including
a laser head (Fig. 1, element 406 and 414 of Fig. 1, element 401; i.e. beam condensing apparatus and concentric powder-feeding nozzle of the laser generator) configured to supply the powder material to the workpiece and irradiate the workpiece with a laser beam (pg. 3, par. [0045] and [0046]; i.e. [0046]: “A concentric powder-feeding nozzle 414 is situated under the beam condensing apparatus 406 to feed powder fed from a cladding material feeder 404, preferably a powder-feeding system, to a molten pool.”), and
a camera (Fig. 4, element 407) provided such that an optical axis (Fig. 7A) of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head (pg. 4, par. [0057] and [0066]; i.e. [0066]: “FIG. 7(A) is a view showing a molten pool observed in the optical axis of a laser beam.”),
the control program causing the additive processing device to execute:
recognizing a height of the workpiece in a laminating direction while the laser head is forming an N-th layer (N being a natural number) of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”);
controlling the laser head (pg. 5, par. [0076], [0077], and [0080]; i.e. [0076]: “The control system 403 controls process parameters in real time so as to form a cladding layer having a shape and a thickness (height) corresponding to 2D sectional information on the basis of sectional shaping information received in real time from the CAD/CAM apparatus 409 and the height data of the molten pool received in real time from the image processing apparatus 408.” and [0080]: “Although in the present invention the laser power is controlled as one of the control parameters, it is possible to control other process parameters such as the powder-feeding rate and the traverse speed of the specimen (or laser beam) in a similar way in real time.”),
specifying a position of a melt pool of the powder material in an image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 4, par. [0060]; i.e. “… in order to obtain the image of the molten pool 203 in real time, there is employed a high-speed, black and white CCD camera that can obtain images of 50 frames/second in progressive scan mode. This CCD camera 601 obtains the image of the molten pool 203 every 20 msec and transmits image information to the image processing apparatus 408. In order to obtain the images of the molten pool 203 at a higher speed, a high-speed CCD camera of 150 frames/sec or more can be employed.”), and
recognizing the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction based on the position of the melt pool in the image (pg. 4, par. [0061]; i.e. “… the image processing apparatus 408 calculates the physical position and height of the molten pool using an image processing technique, and transmits calculated data to the control system 403 in real time.”).
Not explicitly taught are an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ,
a drive mechanism configured to drive the laser head,
estimating a height of the workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on the recognized height of the N-th layer,
acquiring a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece,
acquiring an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to the laminating direction,
generating a drive path for the laser head for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection, and
controlling the drive mechanism based on the drive path to move the laser head in conjunction with the camera.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a drive mechanism (Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. a head drive device) configured to drive a laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030] and [0034]; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.” and [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”),
generating a drive path for the laser head (pg. 4, par. [0050] and pg. 7, par. [0099]; i.e. “Next, at Step S150, the machining-path generation unit 113 generates a second machining path by correcting the formation sequence of a plurality of reference line beads in the first machining path obtained at Step S140 in accordance with the additive manufacturing method explained in the first embodiment described above.”), and
controlling the drive mechanism based on the drive path (pg. 3, par. [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099]; i.e. [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of a drive mechanism configured to drive a laser head, generating a drive path for the laser head, and controlling the drive mechanism based on the drive path to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ,
estimating a height of the workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on the recognized height of the N-th layer,
acquiring a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece,
acquiring an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to the laminating direction, and
generating a drive path for the laser head for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection, and
move the laser head in conjunction with the camera.
However Nishi, in an analogous art of three-dimensional fabrication systems (pg. 1, par. [0019]), teaches the missing limitations of estimating (i.e. predicts) a height of a workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on a recognized height of a N-th layer (pgs. 3-4, par. [0054]-[0057]; i.e. [0054]: “The predicting unit 380 executes simulation on the variation of the height Z as illustrated in FIGS. 4A to 4C, using fabrication data for fabricating the measurement object, to obtain a probable image.” and [0057]: “The three-dimensional data calculation unit 390 calculates three-dimensional data (actual height data) of the measurement object using the corrected measurement data.”),
acquiring a three-dimensional model (i.e. a shape of a three-dimensional object) expressing a completed shape of the workpiece (pg. 2, par. [0025]-[0027] and pgs. 3-4, par. [0054]; i.e. [0025]: “… the fabricating apparatus 100 further includes a shape sensor 130 to measure the shape of a fabrication layer during fabrication or the shape of a three-dimensional object after fabrication.”),
acquiring an outline (e.g. parameters of a shape of the three-dimensional object to be fabricated and dimension and height of each fabrication layer) of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to a laminating direction (pg. 4, par. [0060]; i.e. “The correcting unit 360 corrects fabrication data for fabricating a three-dimensional object. For example, the correcting unit 360 can correct the fabrication data so that the fabricating operation performed by the fabrication-device control unit 330 is changed according to the difference compared by the comparing unit 350. Here, changing the fabricating operation indicates changing of parameters and algorithms included in the fabrication data. Examples of the parameters and algorithms include the shape of the three-dimensional object to be fabricated, the dimension and height of each fabrication layer …”), and
generating a drive path for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection (pg. 3, par. [0047] and pg. 4, par. [0059] and [0060]; i.e. [0047]: “The fabrication-device control unit 330 controls an operation of fabricating a three-dimensional object with the fabrication device 206 according to the fabrication data. The fabrication-device control unit 330 adjusts the position of the head 110 and the height of the stage 120 according to the fabrication data so that the fabrication-device control unit 330 can fabricate the three-dimensional object while controlling various parameters, such as the fabrication speed and the lamination pitch, and algorithms.” and [0060]: “… the correcting unit 360 can correct the fabrication data so that the fabricating operation performed by the fabrication-device control unit 330 is changed according to the difference compared by the comparing unit 350. Here, changing the fabricating operation indicates changing of parameters and algorithms included in the fabrication data.”) for the purpose of fabricating a three-dimensional object (pgs. 1-2, par. [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita to include the addition of the limitations of estimating a height of a workpiece in formation of a N+1-th layer based on a recognized height of a N-th layer, acquiring a three-dimensional model expressing a completed shape of the workpiece, acquiring an outline of an intersection between the three-dimensional model and a first plane that corresponds to the estimated height and is perpendicular to a laminating direction, and generating a drive path for formation of the N+1-th layer of the workpiece based on the outline of an intersection to inexpensively and easily achieve high precision in fabricating a three-dimensional object (Nishi: pg. 5, par. [0071]).
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach an optical axis of the camera intersects an optical axis of the laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, and
the laser head configured to move in conjunction with camera.
However Bodduluri, in an analogous art of a robotic arm with an imaging device (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 3, par. [0048]), teaches the missing limitations of an optical axis of a camera (Fig. 1, element 28) intersects an optical axis of a laser head (Fig .1, element 30) at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ (pg. 4, par. [0047] and [0048], pg. 5, par. [0058] and [0062], and pg. 6, par. [0068]; i.e. [0057]: “… when using a stereo pair of cameras, e.g., camera pair 28 in FIG. 1, the respective optical axes (and camera frames) of the cameras are typically not installed or maintained in parallel, but are slightly verged, e.g., about 10 degrees, which may be compensated for through known image processing techniques.”, [0062]: “After the robotics system 25 has been initiated and calibrated so that the camera frame is aligned with the tool frame (described above in conjunction with FIG. 4), image data is acquired and processed by the system computer to identify objects of interest in the camera frame.”, and [0068]: “It will also be appreciated that, rather than a coring harvesting tool, such as tool 40, another type of hair removal end-effecter tool may be employed, such as, e.g., a laser.”), an arm (Fig. 1, element 27; i.e. robotic arm) provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ (pg. 3, par. [0047] and [0048], pg. 4, par. [0057], pg. 6, par. [0068]; i.e. [0048]: “… movement of the robotic arm 27 is governed by a system controller (not shown), in response to control signals derived from image data acquired by a pair of "stereo" cameras 28 attached to the distal end of the robotic arm (proximate the end-effecter assembly 30). In alternate embodiments, only a single camera need be used for image acquisition.” and [0057]: “… when using a stereo pair of cameras, e.g., camera pair 28 in FIG. 1, the respective optical axes (and camera frames) of the cameras are typically not installed or maintained in parallel, but are slightly verged, e.g., about 10 degrees, which may be compensated for through known image processing techniques.” and [0068]: “It will also be appreciated that, rather than a coring harvesting tool, such as tool 40, another type of hair removal end-effecter tool may be employed, such as, e.g., a laser.”) and
the laser head configured to move in conjunction with camera (pg. 3, par. [0047] and [0048]; i.e. [0048]: “… movement of the robotic arm 27 is governed by a system controller (not shown), in response to control signals derived from image data acquired by a pair of "stereo" cameras 28 attached to the distal end of the robotic arm (proximate the end-effecter assembly 30). In alternate embodiments, only a single camera need be used for image acquisition.”) for the purpose of performing various procedures with a robotic arm (pg. 3, par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi to include the addition of the limitations of an optical axis of a camera intersects an optical axis of a laser head at a fixed acute angle ϴ where the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head with keeping the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ, an arm provided between the camera and the laser head that is configured to keep the optical axis of the camera to intersect the optical axis of the laser head at the fixed acute angle ϴ and the laser head configured to move in conjunction with camera to rapidly and precisely position a respective tool or assembly at a desired location (Bodduluri: pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0124261 A1 (hereinafter Clay).
As per claim 3, Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach the camera is provided with a light-shielding plate.
However Clay, in analogous art of imaging systems (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of a camera is provided with a light-shielding plate (pg. 5, [0066] and [0072]) for the purpose of blocking stray light (pg. 3, par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitation of a camera is provided with a light-shielding plate to prevent undesirable effects in captured images, such as artifacts, noise, and distortion (Clay: pg. 3, par. [0054]).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0247064 A1 (hereinafter Yang), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0245251 A1 (hereinafter Mattes).
As per claim 6, Suh does not expressly teach the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
the planes making up the second plane group (pg. 7, par. [0096] and Fig. 14, element 51b-51f; i.e. [0096]: “FIG. 13 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a manufacturing-target shape that is represented by the CAD data 120 and is to be processed by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2. FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of divided layers that are obtained after division by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2.”, [0097]: “The machining-path generation unit 113 extracts bead formation surfaces 51as, 51bs, 51cs, 51ds, 51es, and 51fs individually from the respective divided-layer shapes of the divided layers 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d, 51e, and 51f.”; and [0098]: “Next, at Step S140, the machining-path generation unit 113 generates a machining path for the reference-line-bead additive machining to individually form each of the divided layers obtained at Step S130.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to perform functions, and the planes making up the second plane group to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach a specification unit configured to specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach a specification unit configured to specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
However Yang, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of specify a size of a melt pool (i.e. melt pool width) in an image obtained from a camera (Fig. 1A, element 200) while a laser head (Fig. 1B, element 102; i.e. a fusion system) is forming a N-th layer of a workpiece (pg. 3, par. [0029] and [0030] and pg. 4, par. [0034]; i.e. [0030]: “The in-situ metrology system 200 is configured to collect a set of feature data IM of each melt pool on the powder bed 110 and a homogeneity index of each powder layer during a fabrication process of each workpiece product, and the set of feature data IM (melt pool characteristics) includes a melt-pool length feature, a melt-pool width feature and a melt-pool temperature feature.” and [0034]: “The image-feature extraction device 220 is configured to extract a length and a width of each of the melt pools from the image of each of the melt pools …”) for the purpose of collecting data of each melt pool (pg. 3, par. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitation of specify a size of a melt pool in an image obtained from a camera while a laser head is forming a N-th layer of a workpiece to advantageously increase yield (Yang: pg. 3, par. [0013]).
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri and Yang does not expressly teach the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
However Mattes, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of set a larger interval between layers as a size of a melt pool increases (pg. 4, par. [0026]; i.e. “Thereby, the “effective penetration depth” or “molten pool depth” or “welding penetration depth” could be increased, which will allow thicker layers to be fused and at the same time the “hardening width” (the “melt pool width”) can be reduced, which would benefit the accuracy of detail, wherein “hardening width” is to be understood as the maximum expansion perpendicular to the direction of movement of the energy beam on the build field.”) for the purpose of generating control data for an additive manufacturing device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 4, par. [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri and Yang to include the addition of the limitation setting a larger interval between layers as a size of a melt pool increases to achieve a smoother component surface (Mattes: pg. 4, par. [0026]).
As per claim 9, Suh does not expressly teach the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
the planes making up the second plane group (pg. 7, par. [0096] and Fig. 14, element 51b-51f; i.e. [0096]: “FIG. 13 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a manufacturing-target shape that is represented by the CAD data 120 and is to be processed by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2. FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of divided layers that are obtained after division by the machining-path generation unit 113 illustrated in FIG. 2.”, [0097]: “The machining-path generation unit 113 extracts bead formation surfaces 51as, 51bs, 51cs, 51ds, 51es, and 51fs individually from the respective divided-layer shapes of the divided layers 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d, 51e, and 51f.”; and [0098]: “Next, at Step S140, the machining-path generation unit 113 generates a machining path for the reference-line-bead additive machining to individually form each of the divided layers obtained at Step S130.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to perform functions, and the planes making up the second plane group to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach a specification unit configured to specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach a specification unit configured to specify a size of the melt pool in the image obtained from the camera while the laser head is forming the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
However Yang, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of specify a size of a melt pool (i.e. melt pool width) in an image obtained from a camera (Fig. 1A, element 200) while a laser head (Fig. 1B, element 102; i.e. a fusion system) is forming a N-th layer of a workpiece (pg. 3, par. [0029] and [0030] and pg. 4, par. [0034]; i.e. [0030]: “The in-situ metrology system 200 is configured to collect a set of feature data IM of each melt pool on the powder bed 110 and a homogeneity index of each powder layer during a fabrication process of each workpiece product, and the set of feature data IM (melt pool characteristics) includes a melt-pool length feature, a melt-pool width feature and a melt-pool temperature feature.” and [0034]: “The image-feature extraction device 220 is configured to extract a length and a width of each of the melt pools from the image of each of the melt pools …”) for the purpose of collecting data of each melt pool (pg. 3, par. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitation of specify a size of a melt pool in an image obtained from a camera while a laser head is forming a N-th layer of a workpiece to advantageously increase yield (Yang: pg. 3, par. [0013]).
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri and Yang does not expressly teach the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to set a larger interval between the planes making up the second plane group as the size of the melt pool increases.
However Mattes, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of set a larger interval between layers as a size of a melt pool increases (pg. 4, par. [0026]; i.e. “Thereby, the “effective penetration depth” or “molten pool depth” or “welding penetration depth” could be increased, which will allow thicker layers to be fused and at the same time the “hardening width” (the “melt pool width”) can be reduced, which would benefit the accuracy of detail, wherein “hardening width” is to be understood as the maximum expansion perpendicular to the direction of movement of the energy beam on the build field.”) for the purpose of generating control data for an additive manufacturing device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 4, par. [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri and Yang to include the addition of the limitation setting a larger interval between layers as a size of a melt pool increases to achieve a smoother component surface (Mattes: pg. 4, par. [0026]).
Claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0239719 A1 (hereinafter Buller).
As per claim 10, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 11, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 14, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 16, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 17, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Clay, and Buller.
As per claim 12, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, and Clay does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, and Clay to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Claims 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Yang, Mattes, and Buller.
As per claim 13, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, and Yang does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Yang, and Mattes does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Yang, and Mattes to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 15, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, and Yang does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Yang, and Mattes does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Yang, and Mattes to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 18, Suh teaches recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pg. 5, par. [0071]-[0076]; i.e. [0076]: “The image processing apparatus 408 calculates the position and height of the molten pool using the above-described principal …”).
Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Morita, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits (Fig. 3, element 41; i.e. the CPU) to cause the additive processing device to perform functions (pg. 3, par. [0043]-[0045], and pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. [0043]: “A hardware configuration of the control device 1 is described here. The control device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implemented by hardware executing a control program that is a program for controlling the additive manufacturing device 100 according to the first embodiment.”, [0045]: “The CPU 41 executes programs stored in the ROM 43 and the external storage device 44. The additive manufacturing device 100 is controlled in its entirety by the control device 1 using the CPU 41.”, and [0056]: “The CAM device 110 illustrated in FIG. 2 is implemented by hardware having the configuration as illustrated in FIG. 3 executing a control program that is a program for controlling the CAM device 110. The functions of the CAM device 110 may be implemented by a processing circuit that is hardware dedicated to controlling the CAM device 110.”), and
control the laser head (pgs. 2-3, par. [0030], [0034], [0038] and [0039] and pg. 7, par. [0099] ; i.e. [0030]: “The additive manufacturing device 100 includes a machining head 10 including a beam nozzle 11, a wire nozzle 12, and a gas nozzle 13.”; [0034]: “A head drive device 14 moves the machining head 10 in each of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction.”; and [0038]: “A control device 1 controls the additive manufacturing device 100 in accordance with a machining program transmitted from the CAM device 110.”) for the purpose of manufacturing a three-dimensional object (pg. 3, par. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Suh to include the addition of the limitations of the stored instructions executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to perform functions and control the laser head to advantageously improve a shape accuracy of a manufactured object (Morita: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Suh in view of Morita does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi and Bodduluri does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, and Yang does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Yang, and Mattes does not expressly teach recognize the height of the workpiece in the laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control the laser head such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming a N+1-th layer of the workpiece.
However Buller, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0006] and pgs. 27-28, par. [0161]), teaches the missing teaches of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 36-37, par. [0197]; i.e. “The closed loop control may rely on in situ measurements (e.g., of an exposed surface). The in situ measurements may be in the chamber where the 3D object is generated (e.g., processing chamber). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during the 3D printing process of the at least one 3D object). The closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object). … The positional sensor may be a metrology sensor (e.g., as described herein). The variation may be determined based on height variation measurements. The variation may be determined by height evaluation of the exposed surface of the material bed, portions thereof, or any protruding object therefrom.”), and
in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations (i.e. different portions on the surface of a 3D object), control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece (pgs. 37-38, par. [0201] and [0202] and pg. 56, par. [0268]; i.e. [0201]: The control may comprise generating a path plan (e.g., comprising a hatching plan) of a particular 3D model slice, along which path the energy beam (e.g., transforming energy beam) may travel.”; [0202]: “The printing instructions be different for at least two (e.g., geometrically different) portion of the 3D object.”; and [0268]: “The corrective deformation may enable a formation of a (e.g., substantially) non-deformed 3D object. The manner of printing one or more subsequent layers to the correctively deformed layers may take into account the (e.g., in situ and/or real time) measurements from the one or more sensors. The corrective deformation may be of an entire layer of hardened material, or a portion thereof. The corrective deformation may be of at least a portion of the layer of hardened material as part of a 3D object.”) for the purpose of controlling three-dimensional object during formation (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Suh in view of Morita in further view of Nishi, Bodduluri, Yang, and Mattes to include the addition of the limitations of recognize height of the workpiece in a laminating direction at a plurality of locations in the N-th layer of the workpiece, and in a case where a height at a first location among the plurality of locations is lower than a height at a second location among the plurality of locations, control such that a stacking amount at the first location is higher than a stacking amount at the second location when forming the N+1-th layer of the workpiece to advantageously generate custom parts quickly and efficiently (Buller: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to additive manufacturing systems/methods and imaging systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0165921 A1 discloses a method of producing a three-dimensional object from an extrusion of material forms uses a movable portion of an additive extrusion printing device to form at least one line of material (“line of material”).
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0178521 A1 discloses a processing apparatus controls a irradiation position of an energy beam by using a shape information relating to a shape of an object.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0379823 A1 discloses a method of producing a workpiece includes obtaining CAD data representing the workpiece in multiple workpiece layers.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0054570 A1 discloses a laser processing apparatus configured to emit a laser light onto an object to form a modified region inside the object.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0178127 A1 discloses a manufacturing method of an additively manufactured object in which a welding bead formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal by a building device is repeatedly deposited based on a predetermined trajectory plan
U.S. Patent No. 4,198,164 discloses a method and apparatus for railroad track surveying for accurately determining track gauge includes a pair of electro-optical sensors which are situated completely above a rail head level.
U.S. Patent No. 5,771,100 discloses a method of accurately measuring a dimension of a mold or the like by a laser measuring instrument.
U.S. Patent No. 12,079,978 B2 discloses a system and method for determining a location and characteristics of certain surface features that comprises elevated or depressed regions with respect to a smooth surrounding surface on an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights