DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2023, 11/08/2023, 05/14/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 10-15) in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledge. Group II (claim 8) and Group III (claim 9) are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEM FOR MANUFACTURING ADDITIVELY-MANUFACTURED OBJECT.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-7, 10-15 recite the limitation “an additively-manufactured object” in line 1. This should read “the additively-manufactured object” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 1).
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 15 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claims 11, 14 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claims 12, 15 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Claim 7 is objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
Claim 13 is objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Claim 14 is objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
Claim 15 is objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first measurement unit that is mounted on the torch and that directly measures, in a non-contact manner, a base shape of a base portion on which the weld beads are deposited” in claim 1 (lines 4-5) and “first measurement unit” in claim 1 (lines 9-10), claim 2 (line 3), claim 3 (line 4), claim 4 (line 4). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “directly measures, in a non-contact manner, a base shape of a base portion on which the weld beads are deposited” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “first measurement unit” will be interpreted as “laser sensor” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Pars.0011 & 0023.
“second measurement unit that measures at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimates the base shape from history change thereof” in claim 1 (lines 6-8), and “second measurement unit” in claim 1 (line 10), claim 2 (line 4), claim 3 (line 4), claim 4 (line 4), claim 7 (line 3), claim 13 (line 3), claim 14 (line 3), claim 15 (line 3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “measures at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimates the base shape from history change thereof” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “second measurement unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Specification and the Drawings do not provide sufficient structures, materials or acts of the second measurement unit for performing the claimed function, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
“control unit that selects at least either of a measurement result by the first measurement unit or by the second measurement unit and corrects control of at least one of the robot arm, the current, the voltage, and the filler metal supply rate” in claim 1 (lines 9-11), “control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit and the measurement result by the second measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, respectively, and corrects the control by switching selection of the measurement result when a deviation value from the threshold value exceeds a predetermined value” in claim 2 (lines 3-6), “control unit compares a moving distance of the torch, a measurement position of the first measurement unit, and a measurement position of the second measurement unit with positions on the depositing plan to switch the selection of the measurement result” in claim 3 (lines 3-5), “control unit compares a moving distance of the torch, a measurement position of the first measurement unit, and a measurement position of the second measurement unit with positions on the depositing plan to switch the selection of the measurement result” in claim 4 (lines 3-5). These limitations use generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language: “selects at least either of a measurement result by the first measurement unit or by the second measurement unit and corrects control of at least one of the robot arm, the current, the voltage, and the filler metal supply rate” as recited in claim 1, “compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit and the measurement result by the second measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, respectively, and corrects the control by switching selection of the measurement result when a deviation value from the threshold value exceeds a predetermined value” as recited in claim 2, “compares a moving distance of the torch, a measurement position of the first measurement unit, and a measurement position of the second measurement unit with positions on the depositing plan to switch the selection of the measurement result” as recited in claim 3, “compares a moving distance of the torch, a measurement position of the first measurement unit, and a measurement position of the second measurement unit with positions on the depositing plan to switch the selection of the measurement result” as recited in claim 4 (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “control unit” will be interpreted as “computer” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0024.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (lines 6-8) recites the limitation “a second measurement unit that measures at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimates the base shape from history change thereof”, and claim 1 (line 10), claim 2 (line 4), claim 3 (line 4), claim 4 (line 4), claim 7 (line 3), claim 13 (line 3), claim 14 (line 3), claim 15 (line 3) recite the limitation “second measurement unit”. Claim limitation “second measurement unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See details in the Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification and the drawings of the Instant Application fail to show/describe the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the second measuring unit. It is noted that Par.0024 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 13 includes a CAD/CAM unit 31, a track calculation unit 33, a storage unit 35, a deviation amount calculation unit 37, a correction unit 39, a second measurement unit 32, and a control unit 41 to which these units are connected. The controller 13 is implemented by a computer device including a CPU, a memory, a storage, and the like” and Fig.1 of the Instant Application also shows that the second measuring unit 32 is part of the controller 13, wherein the controller 13 is implemented by a computer device. However, the description of the Instant Application does not describe what the second measurement unit 32 exactly is. It is noted that claim 1 recites “a second measurement unit that measures at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimates the base shape from history change thereof” in lines 6-8. Thus, without knowing exactly what the second measurement unit 32 is, it is unclear how the second measurement unit capable of measuring at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimating the base shape from history change thereof because according to the drawings and specification of the Instant Application, the second measurement unit 32 appears to be part of the computer device, non-limiting examples are software, code, mathematical model, computing model, etc. However, none of these is capable of measuring at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited without using a sensor or a detector. It is unclear how part of the computer capable of measuring at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited without a sensor or a detector. Thus, the written description and the drawings fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-7, 10-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claims 11, 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claims 12, 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
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 1-7, 10-15 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 2 recites the limitation “the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit and the measurement result by the second measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, respectively” in lines 3-5. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear if:
the limitation “the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit and the measurement result by the second measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, respectively” recited in claim 2 (lines 3-5) means the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit with one of the predetermined threshold values, and the control unit compares the measurement result by the second measurement unit with another one of the predetermined threshold values; or
the limitation “the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit and the measurement result by the second measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, respectively” recited in claim 2 (lines 3-5) means the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, and the control unit compares the measurement result by the second measurement unit with the same predetermined threshold values.
For examination purposes, the limitation “the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit and the measurement result by the second measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, respectively” recited in claim 2 (lines 3-5) will be interpreted as the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit with predetermined threshold values, and the control unit compares the measurement result by the second measurement unit with the same predetermined threshold values.
Claim 2 (line 6), claim 6 (line 4) recite the limitation “the threshold value”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 2 recites the limitation “predetermined threshold values” previously in claim 2 (line 4). Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “the threshold value” recited in claim 2 (line 6) and claim 6 (line 4) refers to one of the “predetermined threshold values” recited previously in claim 2 (line 4), or the limitation “the threshold value” recited in claim 2 (line 6) and claim 6 (line 4) refers to a different threshold value. For examination purposes, the limitation “the threshold value” recited in claim 2 (line 6) and claim 6 (line 4) will be interpreted as to refer to one of the “predetermined threshold values” recited previously in claim 2 (line 4).
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the measurement result” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 6 depends on claim 2; however, there are two measurement results recited previously in claim 2 (lines 3-4), which are the measurement result by the first measurement unit and the measurement result by the second measurement unit. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “the measurement result” recited in claim 6 (line 3) refers to the measurement result by the first measurement unit, or to the measurement result by the second measurement unit, or to the measurement result by both first and second measurement units.
Claim 1 (lines 6-8) recites the limitation “a second measurement unit that measures at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimates the base shape from history change thereof”, and claim 1 (line 10), claim 2 (line 4), claim 3 (line 4), claim 4 (line 4), claim 7 (line 3), claim 13 (line 3), claim 14 (line 3), claim 15 (line 3) recites the limitation “second measurement unit”. Claim limitation “second measurement unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See details in the Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification and the drawings of the Instant Application fail to show/describe the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the second measuring unit. It is noted that Par.0024 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 13 includes a CAD/CAM unit 31, a track calculation unit 33, a storage unit 35, a deviation amount calculation unit 37, a correction unit 39, a second measurement unit 32, and a control unit 41 to which these units are connected. The controller 13 is implemented by a computer device including a CPU, a memory, a storage, and the like” and Fig.1 of the Instant Application also shows that the second measuring unit 32 is part of the controller 13, wherein the controller 13 is implemented by a computer device. However, the description of the Instant Application does not describe what the second measurement unit 32 exactly is. It is noted that claim 1 recites “a second measurement unit that measures at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimates the base shape from history change thereof” in lines 6-8. Thus, without knowing exactly what the second measurement unit 32 is, it is unclear how the second measurement unit capable of measuring at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited, and estimating the base shape from history change thereof because according to the drawings and specification of the Instant Application, the second measurement unit 32 appears to be part of the computer device, non-limiting examples are software, code, mathematical model, computing model, etc. However, none of these is capable of measuring at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited without using a sensor or a detector. It is unclear how part of the computer capable of measuring at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited without a sensor or a detector. Thus, the written description and the drawings fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7, 13-15 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-7, 10-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claims 11, 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claims 12, 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0090431 A1) in view of Hida et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0001411 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Komatsu discloses a system (robot system 100, Komatsu Fig.1) for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object obtained by depositing weld beads based on a depositing plan, the system (robot system 100, Komatsu Fig.1) comprising:
a torch (welding torch 123, Komatsu Fig.1) that is provided on a robot arm (manipulator 120, Komatsu Fig.1) (Komatsu Fig.1 & Par.0034 discloses the welding torch 123 is provided at a tip of manipulator 120);
a first measurement unit (sensor 131, Komatsu Figs.1-2) that is mounted on the torch (welding torch 123, Komatsu Figs.1-2) and that directly measures, in a non-contact manner, a base shape of a base portion (workpiece W (surface shape), Komatsu Figs.1-2 & Par.0038) on which the weld beads are deposited (Komatsu Par.0038 discloses: “Sensor 131 can two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally detect the shape of workpiece W (surface shape) in a noncontact manner. A method adopting laser beam is a known method of detecting the shape of workpiece W in a noncontact manner by sensor 131.”);
a second measurement unit (See the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section above for the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) & 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections for the limitation “second measuring unit”. In this case, the second measuring unit is interpreted as “voltage detection part (not illustrated)” [Komatsu Par.0035] & “command current” [Komatsu Par.0037]) that measures at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate when the weld beads are deposited (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Komatsu discloses measuring the welding voltage and filler metal supply rate because Komatsu Par.0035 discloses: “a voltage detection part (not illustrated) for detecting the welding voltage”, and Komatsu Par.0037 discloses: “When welding starts according to a command from robot controller 110, welding power supply unit 140 applies welding voltage between workpiece W and welding wire 122, and also controls welding wire feeder 121 such that welding wire 122 is fed at a feeding speed determined by command current.”); and
a control unit (robot controller 110, Komatsu Fig.1 & Par.0033) that selects at least either of a measurement result by the first measurement unit (sensor 131, Komatsu Fig.1) or by the second measurement unit (it is noted that the limitation “by the first measurement unit or by the second measurement unit” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination) and corrects control of at least one of the robot arm (manipulator 120, Komatsu Fig.1), the current, the voltage, and the filler metal supply rate (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of the robot arm, the current, the voltage, and the filler metal supply rate” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Komatsu discloses the robot controller 110 selects measurement result by the sensor 131 and correct the manipulator 120 because Komatsu Figs.1-2 & Par.0034 discloses the welding torch 123 is provided at a tip of manipulator 120, and Komatsu Par.0043 discloses: “When sensor controller 130 receives a sensor output command from robot controller 110, laser output control part 132 controls laser sensor 138, which is an example of sensor 131, and laser sensor 138 outputs laser beam. Here, by using the oscillating mirror (not illustrated), sensor controller 130 outputs laser beam in a radial fashion to workpiece W, as shown in FIG. 2. Laser input controller 133 receives information on the laser beam received (reflected light) from laser sensor 138 receiving the reflected light of laser beam output in a radial fashion. Input data processing part 134 then applies arithmetic processing to the laser beam (reflected light) received. Input data processing part 134 expresses and plots each element point as a coordinate on a sensor coordinate system. In this way, as shown in FIG. 4, the shape of workpiece W is detected, and a coordinate of feature point P can be calculated. As shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, the welding advancing direction is the Z axis, a horizontal direction (within the plane of workpiece W) relative to the welding advancing direction is the X axis, and a vertical direction (vertical direction of workpiece W) relative to the welding advancing direction is the Y axis in the exemplary embodiment. This feature point P is a target welding point of welding torch 123.”.)
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose:
the second measurement unit estimates the base shape from history change thereof
Hida teaches a system (welding robot system 1, Hida Fig.1) for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object obtained by depositing weld beads based on a depositing plan, the system (welding robot system 1, Hida Fig.1) comprising:
a second measurement unit (computer 5, Hida Fig.1) (See the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section above for the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) & 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections for the limitation “second measuring unit”.) that obtains at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate (it is noted that the limitation “at least one of a current, a voltage, and a filler metal supply rate” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination) when the weld beads are deposited, and estimates the base shape from history change thereof (Hida Par.0098 teaches: “One candidate welding speed is selected, the amount of weld deposition and the weld shape are calculated”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Komatsu, by adding the teaching of the second measurement unit estimates the base shape from history change thereof, as taught by Hida, in order to achieve high-accuracy, real-time, and comprehensive quality control since laser sensor excels at external bead shape and geometry, it cannot directly measure internal, instantaneous, or electrical-based defects, making the secondary measurement unit essential since parameters like voltage and current are directly correlated with heat input, analyzing these allows for the estimation of internal bead shape, such as depth of penetration, which a surface-focused laser cannot directly measure. Thus, improve the overall weld quality.
Regarding claim 5, Komatsu in view of Hida teaches the system of claim 1, Komatsu also discloses:
wherein the first measurement unit (sensor 131, Komatsu Figs.1-2) is a laser sensor (Komatsu discloses the sensor 131 is laser sensor because Komatsu Par.0038 discloses: “Sensor 131 can two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally detect the shape of workpiece W (surface shape) in a noncontact manner. A method adopting laser beam is a known method of detecting the shape of workpiece W in a noncontact manner by sensor 131. The detection method using laser beam includes methods of calculating a distance based on time until laser beam reflects on workpiece and returns after pulse-waveform laser beam is emitted from sensor 131, and based on an angle of returning laser beam reflected on workpiece W. In general, sensor 131 detects the shape of workpiece W by scanning a broad range by laser beam, using an oscillating mirror.”, and Komatsu Par.0043 discloses: “When sensor controller 130 receives a sensor output command from robot controller 110, laser output control part 132 controls laser sensor 138, which is an example of sensor 131, and laser sensor 138 outputs laser beam.”), and a laser beam (laser beam, Komatsu annotated Fig.2 below) of the laser sensor (sensor 131, Komatsu Figs.1-2) is emitted forward or backward with respect to a scanning direction of the torch (welding torch 123, Komatsu Figs.1-2) (It is noted that the limitation “forward or backward” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Komatsu Fig.2 shows the laser beam of the laser sensor 131 is emitted forward with respect to a scanning direction of the welding torch 123).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, Komatsu in view of Hida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Komatsu also discloses wherein the control unit compares the measurement result by the first measurement unit with predetermined threshold values.
Additionally, the prior art Yamasaki et al. (JP 2018149570 A) discloses a welding robot system comprising a control unit configured to compare measurement result by a measurement unit with predetermined threshold values.
Furthermore, the prior art Kraft et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,700,966 B2) discloses a welding system comprising a control unit configured to compare measurement result by a measurement unit with predetermined threshold values.
However, Applicant(s)’ Claim 2 also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ Claim 2 recites: “corrects the control by switching selection of the measurement result when a deviation value from the threshold value exceeds a predetermined value.”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 15 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Komatsu in view of Hida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Komatsu also discloses wherein the control unit compares a moving distance of the torch and a measurement position of the first measurement unit with positions on the depositing plan.
Furthermore, the prior art Yamasaki et al. (JP 2018149570 A) discloses a welding robot system comprising a control unit configured to compare a moving distance of the torch and a measurement position of a measurement unit with positions on the depositing plan.
However, Applicant(s)’ Claim 3 also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ Claim 3 requires: the control unit compares measurement positions of both the first and the second measurement units with positions on the depositing plan to switch the selection of the measurement result.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 and 14 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Komatsu in view of Hida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, however, Komatsu in view of Hida does not teach: wherein the measurement result by the second measurement unit is selected when a mounting direction of the laser sensor as seen from the torch is not same as the scanning direction of the torch.
Accordingly, Applicant(s)’ Claim 7 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ Claim 7 recites: “wherein the measurement result by the second measurement unit is selected when a mounting direction of the laser sensor as seen from the torch is not same as the scanning direction of the torch”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0126379 A1) discloses a welding and processing condition setting system including an input device, a display device, a control device, and a database.
Albright et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0095640 A1) discloses an electric arc generation system comprising a robot, an electric arc torch attached to the robot, a power supply configured to provide an electrical power output to the torch, and a user interface for adjusting a plurality of power supply parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/20/2026