DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 26 November 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 have been amended. Claims 2 has been cancelled. Claims 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 11-12, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to objected claims 1, 19, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment filed on November 2025. The objections of claims 1, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pg. 12, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to rejected claims 5, 6, and 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument, “In response, Applicant has amended claims 3, 5, 6, and 8-18 to recited ‘executed by the one or more control circuits.’” (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 7) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner maintains claims 5, 6, and 8-18 recite “executed by the one or more storage circuits”; hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pg. 12, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
However, as Applicant has amended claim 1, the height is detected from the image captured by the camera, and based on that height, the drive path is determined. Then, the camera is moved in conjunction with the laser head such that the optical axis of the camera intersects the optical axis of the laser head. Applicant respectfully asserts that Beachman is silent with regards to the camera in the claimed fashion. Applicant also asserts that any other prior art of record is silent with regards to the arrangement of the camera. Thus, non-obviousness of claim 1 is self-evident. (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the newly presented limitations were similarly recited in cancelled claim 2. The prior art U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0024243 A1 (Suh) was cited for teaching the limitations of cancelled claim 2 and not that of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0087634 A1 (Beacham); hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
As claims 19 and 20 similarly recite, Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 19 and 20 are also allowable for the same or similar reasons stated above. (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 2)
Moreover, Applicant believes that dependent claims 3, 5, 6, and 8-18 are also allowable over the prior art of record in that they depend from independent claim 1, and therefore are allowable for the reasons stated above. (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pg. 3, paragraph 6 of this Office action, and the arguments herein as addressed.
Claim 1 stands objected to, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the grammatical and antecedent issues “the one or more storage” in line 11. Suggested claim language: “one or more storage devices”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue of “… an intersection, and” at the end of line 25. Suggested claim language: “… an intersection,”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 includes the punctuation issue of “… the workpiece;” in line 15. Suggested claim language: “… the workpiece,”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 includes the punctuation and redundant claim language issues of “… the drive path; the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to: specify” in lines 26-28. Suggested claim language: “… the drive path, specify”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination. Examiner’s Note: If the Applicant adopts the suggested claim language, the recitation of “and” at the end of line 25 should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“the one or more storage storing instructions that are executed by the one or more control circuits to cause the additive processing device to …” (in lines 11-12)
Claim 1 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 27-287)
Claim 5 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (line 3)
Claim 6 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 8 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 9 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 10 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 11 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 12 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 13 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 14 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 15 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 16 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 17 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
Claim 18 recites:
“… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage circuits cause the additive processing device to” (lines 3 and 7)
In summary, independent claim 1 recites the stored instructions are executed by one or more control circuits; however, claim 1 and dependent claims 5, 6, and 8-18 recite the stored instructions are executed by the one or more storage circuits. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8-18 are indefinite since the claims are unclear as to how the one or more storage device actually execute the stored instructions and the claims recite two disparate components (i.e. a control circuit(s) and a storage circuits(s)) execute the stored instructions (i.e. claim 1 recites the one or more control circuits execute the stored instructions and subsequently claim 1 and dependent claims 5, 6, and 8-18 recite the one or more storage circuits execute the stored instructions).
Suggested claim language to obviate the current rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 8-18:
“… the stored instructions executed by one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to”.
For the purpose of examination the limitation of “… the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage devices cause the additive processing device to” has been interpreted as “… the stored instructions executed by one or more control circuits cause the additive processing device to”.
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 8-20, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 6, 14, and 15, dependent from claim 5, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 15, dependent from claim 6, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 9, 13, 17, and 18, dependent from claim 8, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 8.
Claims 13 and 18, dependent from claim 9, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9.
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. 2017/0087634 A1 (hereinafter Beacham).
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;
the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head;
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 the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head;
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 the camera configured to move in conjunction with the laser head.
However Beacham, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pgs. 1-2, par. [0002] and [0016]), teaches the missing limitation of a camera configured to move in conjunction with a laser (pg. 3, par. [0031]; i.e. “In particular, in an embodiment, the camera may be configured to provide active tracking of the laser path in order to follow the spark plume. In other embodiments, the laser path may be programmed in the processing and control unit and fed to the camera so that a programmed path of the camera tracks the programmed path of the laser.”) for the purpose of following a camera following a laser’s path (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
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 limitation of a camera configured to move in conjunction with a laser to advantageously provide better focus on a plume, as well as, eliminate or reduce artifacts (Beacham: pg. 3, par. [0031]).
As per claim 5, Suh does not expressly teach wherein the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage 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 storage circuits (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage 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 storage 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 storage circuits (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage 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 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 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 move the laser head in conjunction with the camera.
However Beacham, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pgs. 1-2, par. [0002] and [0016]), teaches the missing limitation of move a laser in conjunction with a camera (pg. 3, par. [0031]; i.e. “In particular, in an embodiment, the camera may be configured to provide active tracking of the laser path in order to follow the spark plume. In other embodiments, the laser path may be programmed in the processing and control unit and fed to the camera so that a programmed path of the camera tracks the programmed path of the laser.”) for the purpose of following a camera following a laser’s path (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
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 limitation of move a laser in conjunction with a camera to advantageously provide better focus on a plume, as well as, eliminate or reduce artifacts (Beacham: 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 …”); and
controlling (pg. 5, par. [0076]; i.e. “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.”).
Not explicitly taught are 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,
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 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 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 the laser head configured to move in conjunction with camera.
However Beacham, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pgs. 1-2, par. [0002] and [0016]), teaches the missing limitation of move a laser in conjunction with a camera (pg. 3, par. [0031]; i.e. “In particular, in an embodiment, the camera may be configured to provide active tracking of the laser path in order to follow the spark plume. In other embodiments, the laser path may be programmed in the processing and control unit and fed to the camera so that a programmed path of the camera tracks the programmed path of the laser.”) for the purpose of following a camera following a laser’s path (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
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 limitation of move a laser in conjunction with a camera to advantageously provide better focus on a plume, as well as, eliminate or reduce artifacts (Beacham: 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, Beacham, 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 Beacham 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 Beacham 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, Beacham, 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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, Beacham and Yang does not expressly teach the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage devices 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, Beacham 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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, Beacham and Yang does not expressly teach the stored instructions executed by the one or more storage devices 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, Beacham 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, Beacham, 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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 Beacham 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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 Beacham 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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 Beacham 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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 Beacham 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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 Beacham 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, Beacham, 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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 storage devices 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 storage devices 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 storage devices (Fig. 3, element 43; i.e. the ROM) 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 storage devices 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 Beacham 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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, Beacham, 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. 2018/0043634 A1 discloses methods for additive manufacturing (AM) that utilize a computer aided design (CAD) model of a part to develop a layer representation of the part.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0176456 A1 discloses determining a build surface height and setting a working distance between a deposition element and the surface during an additive manufacturing process.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0405729 A1 discloses an imaging head that is attachable to a processing head, the processing head being configured to process an object.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0339921 A1 discloses a processing system includes: a processing apparatus for processing an object by irradiating the object with an energy beam to form a melt pool on the object and supplying a build material to the melt pool; an imaging apparatus for imaging the melt pool to generate a melt pool image; and a control apparatus for generating melt pool image information based on the melt pool image and for controlling the processing apparatus based on the melt pool image information so that a size of the melt pool is a target size.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0371699 A1 discloses a method includes receiving, by a processing device, image data characterizing light reflected from of a film disposed on a processed surface of a substrate.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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