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 Amendment
The amendment lists claims 1, 4, and 15 as amended and claims 7, 9, 10, and 13 as cancelled. Claims 1-4, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14-20 remain pending with claims 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 withdrawn.
The amendment to the Title obviates the previously indicated objection.
The cancellation of claim 10 obviates the previously indicated objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 (d) to the same.
The amendment to claim 1 obviates the previously indicated rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) to the same.
The amendment to claim 4 obviates the previously indicated rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) to the same.
The cancellation of claim 13 and amendment to claim 15 obviates the previously indicated rejection under 35 USC 112 (d) to the same.
The amendment to claim 1 obviates the previously indicated grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 to the same, as well as, claims depending therefrom.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukase (US2020/0130264) in view of Baker (US2020/0368815) and in further view of Katogi (US20190377326)
Regarding claim 1, Fukase discloses an additive manufacturing method (para. 0002 of depositing weld beads (Figs. 1-6; bead 3a) formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal (metal powder M; para. 0027) while moving (via movement device 23; para. 0044) a welding torch (nozzle 21, which uses laser beam L to melt powder M forming bead 3a/3b) attached to a robot tip shaft (para. 0044 discloses articulated robot arm), the additive manufacturing method (see also Abstract) comprising:
a step of measuring a shape profile of an existing weld bead by a non-contact shape sensor (measuring unit 13; para. 0053) (Fig. 6, step S10) 61a includes manufacturing information of the layers 3b and the object 3 including the layers 3b. Examples of the information contained in the NC program 61a include the shapes of the object 3 and the layers 3b, the movement path of the nozzle 21, and various data acquired at each position on the movement path, such as the movement speed and the orientation of the nozzle 21, the amount of the material M ejected per unit time, the speed of the ejected material M, the output of the laser light L, and the focal diameter of the laser light L. The NC program 61a may also include other information.”), the deposition track plan defining a target position of the welding torch and a shape of the weld beads (manufacturing control unit 62 controls manufacturing unit 12 including movement device 23, optical device 41, and material supply device 42 based on NC program 61a to manufacture a plurality of layers 3b-see paragraphs 0059 and 0060) (See also Figure 6; steps S1-S5);
a step of extracting first geometric information of a bead shape from the shape profile and the target position of the welding torch (measuring unit 13 measures the shape of the bead and communicates the result with shape comparing unit 63. In this case, unit 63 receives geometric information of the measured shape measured by unit 13, which corresponds to the position of the torch);
a step of extracting second geometric information corresponding to the first geometric information from the deposition track plan (NC program 61a; para. 0059) (manufacturing unit 12 uses NC program 61a to manufacture layers 3b and relies on comparing unit 63 to compare the result of measurement of the shape of the layers with the shape of the layers in the program. See para. 0060. Specifically, the program stores a model shape of the object and layers that is used as a comparison for the measured values of the object and layers. See step S11) [Additionally, the model shape stored in the program, that is used in the comparison, is understood to refer to using geometric information of the model shape and, as such, is analogous to the claimed second geometric information ] and calculating a deviation amount between the first geometric information and the second geometric information (Fig. 6, step S12; para. 0094);
a step of updating the deposition track plan by changing at least one of a bead height and a bead width in a cross section perpendicular to a bead longitudinal direction of the weld bead defined by the deposition track plan, according to the deviation amount (Step S13 and para. 0095; changing layer forming condition by changing function 61b and/or the contents of the layer forming condition, for example, on the basis of the result of the measurement to correct shape errors.) (para. 0077 states that the layer forming condition represents a command value of the NC program 61a to be input to the manufacturing unit 12 with the layer forming condition including movement speed of nozzle 21, amount of material M ejected from the nozzle, output of laser light L, diameter of focal point of beam L, position of nozzle 21 and speed of material M ejected) (para. 0086 states that function 61b includes changes in thickness T1 of 3a/3b) [In this case, Fukase discloses using the NC program to initially control movement of the torch, including position and angularity, and the powder material to produce weld beads of some shape, including thickness and width. The shape profile of a formed bead is then measured and compared to a model shape and, based on that comparison, shape errors can be corrected. This is understood to mean that at least a height or width of the bead is updated so that the next bead is formed within desired parameters]; and
a step of changing a welding condition according to an update result of the deposition track plan (see above, changing output of laser light, diameter of focal point of beam L and position/angle of nozzle 21), wherein
the first geometric information and the second geometric information include information on at least a geometric feature point near the target position of the welding (the shape of the bead formed compared to the shape the model bead, which necessarily includes a point near the target position of the torch) (para. 0067 states that the shape can by symmetrical or asymmetrical in which it protrudes towards the nozzle 21)
Fukase discloses substantially the claimed method, except for the non-contact shape sensor (measuring unit 13) being provided integrally with the welding torch.
Baker relates to an additive manufacturing robot (Abstract) and teaches a sensor (Figs. 2; 46) being provided integrally with a torch (14), mounted on a robot (65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fukase with Baker, by substituting the cooperative relationship between the sensor and torch of Fukase, to be integral as taught by Baker, for in doing so would provide an alternative torch/sensor arrangement established in the art. Here using the sensor integral to the torch would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized torch/sensor arrangement performing the same function of producing additively manufactured beads and measuring a shape of said beads, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (See MPEP 2144.06-II).
The combination of Fukase and Baker teaches substantially the claimed invention including the geometric feature point. The combination is silent as to the
the geometric information including any one of an apex of a convex shape of the existing weld bead, an endpoint of a narrowed portion formed by recessing a bead outer surface inward between the weld bead and another weld bead adjacent to the weld bead, or a point where an end portion of the weld bead in a width direction and a lower layer surface on which the weld bead is formed intersect.
Katogi relates to the art of additive manufacturing of a three dimensional object (para. 0001) and teaches using a non-contact sensor (17; para. 0043; fig. 1) for measuring the shape of a formed bead [Katogi teaches using an imaging sensor or a laser displacement sensor, which corresponds to the camera or laser measuring device of Fukase-para. 0053).
Katogi teaches that measuring the shape of the formed bead(s) is extracted via a control device (Fig. 1; 3) and used as parameters during manufacturing (para. 0053, 0070). Katorgi teaches using geometric information including an apex of a convex shape of the formed weld bead (See Figure 4 and 5 for bead shape and para. 0053 that details measuring the width BW and height Bh each time the beads 22 are formed. In this case, Bh corresponds to an apex of the convex shape of the bead.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fukase with Baker, by adding to the shape information measured and the extracted geometric information of Fukase, with the geometric information including an apex of a convex shape of the existing weld bead taught by Katogi, for in doing so would provide a means for determining the bead height and width, along with its shape, which would allow such geometric information to be used as input parameters for controlling the additive manufacturing process, which would ensure that weld beads of a prescribed shape, width, and height are accurately formed.
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, including the limitation of wherein the geometric feature point is extracted from the existing weld bead located near the target position of the welding torch (as detailed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, including the limitation of wherein in the step of changing the welding condition, at least one or a combination of two or more of a position of the welding torch, a posture of the welding torch, a welding speed, a welding voltage, a welding current, and a feeding speed of the filler metal is changed (as detailed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, including the limitation of wherein the shape profile is a profile is a cross sectional shape of an existing weld bead including an axis of the welding torch at the target position of the welding torch (Fukase Fig. 2; the shape profile of the weld bead 3a/3b occurs on an plane, defined by X-Z coordinates corresponding to thickness and width of the bead. The X-Z plane includes an axis of the torch 21, indicated by the central dotted line), which is inclined at a predetermined angle from a plane parallel to a detection direction of the weld bead by the non-contact shape sensor (Fig. 1 of Fukase shows torch 21 positioned relative to measurement unit 13. See also Fig. 5) [In this case, the X-Z plane is inclined at some angle from plane Z-Y of a detection direction).
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 4, including wherein the geometric feature point is extracted from the existing weld bead located near the target position of the welding torch (See above as detailed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 4, including wherein in the step of changing the welding condition, at least one or a combination of two or more of a position of the welding torch, a posture of the welding torch, a welding speed, a welding voltage, a welding current, or a feeding speed of the filler metal is changed (see Fukase as detailed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 2, including wherein in the step of changing the welding condition, at least one or a combination of two or more of a position of the welding torch, a posture of the welding torch, a welding speed, a welding voltage, a welding current, and a feeding speed of the filler metal is changed (see Fukase as detailed in claim 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761