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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference characters 92 (“laser source”) appears to designate different structures as shown in Figs. 5A and 10. Reference characters should consistently designate the same element throughout the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶ [0020], “a laser sources” should read “a laser source.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, “claim 11” should read “The method of claim 11.”
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “the 3D component” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “the 3D component” as “the 3D component model.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellerose et al. (US 20080250659) hereinafter Bellerose, in view of Brogardh (US 20060181236).
Regarding claim 1, Bellerose teaches, in Fig. 2,
a computer numeric control (CNC) assembly (annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) comprising:
a machining system (20, “machining system”) including at least one machining tool (34, “machine tool”), and the machining system (20) is configured to move the at least one machining tool relative to a component (Fig. 4: 48, “part”) (¶ [0023]: “The machining system 20 transforms the nominal location 26 and the nominal orientation 28 of each element to be machined into an actual location 30 and an actual orientation 32 adapted to each real, actual part being machined, as will be described below, such that the actual location 30 and the actual orientation 32 of each element is fed to a computerized numerical control (CNC) machine tool 34 for machining that part”); and
a controller including a processor (50, “comparator” and 54, “compensation calculator”, including 56, “calculator”; the examiner interprets comparator 50 and compensation calculator 54 including calculator 56 as collectively corresponding to the claimed controller including a processor because these components perform the recited comparison, calculation, and compensation operations as further discussed below) to:
measure a surface deviation (52, “correlation” or “best fit”) of a drilling surface (40, “digitized actual surface”) of the component (48) from a three- dimensional (3D) component model (24, “nominal surface”) for the component (48) using a position measurement device (38, “scanner”) of the at least one machining tool (34) to identify a position of the drilling surface (40) at a plurality of points on the drilling surface (¶ [0028]: “The scanner 38 captures the actual tridimensional surface of each part to be machined and obtains a corresponding digitized actual surface 40 representing that actual surface”; ¶ [0030]: “The comparator 50 performs a tridimensional comparison between the digitized actual surface 40 and the nominal surface 24 to find a correlation or best fit 52 therebetween”; the examiner interprets the tridimensional comparison between the digitized actual surface 40 and the nominal surface 24 as measuring a surface deviation of the actual surface from the three-dimensional component model);
determine a compensation vector (¶ [0034]: “compensated vector”) of a nominal hole (“hole”; ¶ [0026]: “The machining system 20 will be described herein in relation to a drilling operation … a drill-on-the-fly (DOE) machining operation to define cooling holes”) for the drilling surface (40) using the measured surface deviation (52) (¶ [0032]: “The calculator 54 then generates the actual location 30 and the actual orientation 32 for each element”; ¶ [0034]: “The calculator 56 applies that rotation to the nominal vector (I, J, K) … to obtain a compensated vector (I', J', K')”; the examiner interprets the compensated vector (I’, J’, K’) generated using differences between the nominal surface and the digitized actual surface as the claimed compensation vector);
determine a compensated laser source stand-off position (30, “actual location”) and a compensated laser source orientation (32, “actual orientation”) for the nominal hole (¶ [0026]: “hole”) using the determined compensation vector (“compensated vector”) (¶ [0023]: “The machining system 20 transforms the nominal location 26 and the nominal orientation 28 of each element to be machined into an actual location 30 and an actual orientation 32 adapted to each real, actual part being machined”; ¶ [0054]: “machining … apply to manufacturing methods in which a part configuration or shape is changed by a tool: laser drilling”; ¶ [0032]; ¶ [0034]; ¶ [0026]: “The machining system 20 will be described herein in relation to a drilling operation … a drill-on-the-fly (DOE) machining operation to define cooling holes”; the examiner interprets the actual location 30 generated using the compensated vector as the claimed compensated laser source stand-off position and the actual orientation 32 generated using the compensated vector as the claimed compensated laser source orientation for the nominal hole, wherein the element is a drilled hole.);
position a laser source of the at least one machining tool (34) (¶ [0054]; ¶ [0026]) in the compensated laser source stand-off position (30) and the compensated laser source orientation (32) with the machining system (20) (¶ [0023]; ¶ [0032]; the examiner interprets the machining system utilizing the generated actual location 30 and actual orientation 32 as positioning the machining tool in the compensated position and orientation); and
form a component hole (¶ [0026]: “hole”) in the component (48) using the laser source by directing a laser beam to the drilling surface (40) with the laser source in the compensated laser source stand- off position and the compensated laser source orientation (¶ [0026]; ¶ [0041]: “the elements are provided (e.g. machined) on the actual part”; ¶ [0052]: “the machined elements are a plurality of holes drilled through the lining”; ¶ [0054]; the examiner interprets Bellerose’s compensated drilling locations and orientations used for laser drilling holes in a part as teaching forming a component hole using a laser source directed to the drilling surface while the laser source is positioned at the compensated location and orientation).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Bellerose, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
727
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Bellerose
Regarding claim 1, Bellerose does not explicitly teach
a controller including a processor is in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions to be executed by the processor; and
a position measurement device is a probe.
However, Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 1,
a controller (3, “control system”) including a processor (5, “computer”; the examiner interprets the computer executing the disclosed software as including a processor) is in communication with a non-transitory memory (“internal memory”) storing instructions (“computer program” or “software”) to be executed by the processor (¶ [0020]: “a computer program directly loadable into the internal memory of the computer”; ¶ [0021]: “computer readable medium comprising computer program comprising instructions for making a processor to perform the steps”; ¶ [0041]: “a control system 3 … comprises a computer 5, in which the software of the invention is stored, and in which the software is executed,” which the examiner interprets the disclosed computer, internal memory, and stored software instructions as teaching the claimed controller including a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions to be executed by the processor); and
a position measurement device is a probe (14, “measuring tip”; ¶ [0023]: “the system comprises a measuring device adapted to being in contact with the surface of the object during measuring”; ¶ [0042]: “The outer part of the measuring tip is intended for being brought into contact with the surface of the object 4”; the examiner interprets the measuring tip 14 used to contact and measure points on the object surface as a position measurement probe).
Bellerose and Brogardh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compensating techniques for differences between an actual workpiece and a nominal geometric model during a machining operation. Therefore, 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 laser machining system of Bellerose to utilize the probe-based measurement technique and computer-implemented control architecture as taught by Brogardh, for the purpose of “adjust[ing] the positions … in dependence of the deviations between the measured values and the model … [such that] it is possible to compensate a robot path for all geometric and kinematic errors” (Brogardh, ¶ [0006]), thereby enabling the system to “easily and with high accuracy, find optimum positions and orientations for the measuring points” (Brogardh, ¶ [0018]) and improving the accuracy of machining operations performed on an actual workpiece.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Brogardh
Regarding claim 2, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 1, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using a deviation distance (48, “error vector”) between a closest one of the plurality of points (44, “measuring points”) to the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”), and the deviation distance is a distance between the drilling surface and the 3D component model at the closest one of the plurality of points (Brogardh, ¶ [0083]: “An alternative to the using of subsurfaces is compensation with the closest error vector for closest measuring point”; ¶ [0082]: “A number of error vectors 48 are obtained, which lengths and directions are decided by the distance and direction between the measuring points 44 and corresponding points 45 on the surface of the CAD model”; ¶ [0088]: “the compensation is done by means of the closest error vector in the closest object plan”; the examiner interprets the closest error vector associated with the closest measuring point to the machining location corresponding to the nominal hole as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between a closest one of the plurality of points and the nominal hole, wherein the error vector represents a distance between the actual surface and the CAD model at the closest measuring point).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Brogardh
Regarding claim 3, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 1, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using a deviation distance (48, “error vector”) between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) adjacent the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”), and the deviation distance is a distance between the drilling surface and the 3D component model at each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points (Brogardh, ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0083]: “by using the average value of the error vectors of the n number of closest measuring points”; ¶ [0080]: “A correction vector is calculated for each subsurface. … the average value of the error vectors for the measuring points belonging to the subsurface could be used as a correction vector”; the examiner interprets the average value of the error vectors associated with a plurality of closest measuring points as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points adjacent to the nominal hole, wherein the error vectors represent distances between the actual surface and the CAD model at each point of the adjacent subset).
Regarding claim 4, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 3, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using an average distance of the deviation distance (48, “error vector”) at each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) (Brogardh, ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0083]; ¶ [0080]; the examiner interprets the average value of the error vectors as teaching determining the compensation vector using an average distance of the deviation distance at each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points).
Regarding claim 6, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 1, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using a deviation distance (48, “error vector”) between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) within a predetermined surface distance of the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”), and the deviation distance is a distance between the drilling surface and the 3D component model at each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) (Brogardh, ¶ [0083]: ¶ [0082]; the examiner interprets the n number of closest measuring points as teaching an adjacent subset of the plurality of points within a predetermined surface distance of the nominal hole, wherein each error vector represents a distance between the actual surface and the CAD model at a corresponding point of the adjacent subset).
Regarding claim 7, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 1, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to form a plurality of component holes (Bellerose: “holes”) in the component (Bellerose: 48, “part”) using the laser source (Bellerose, ¶ [0054]: “laser drilling”), and the plurality of component holes includes the component hole (Bellerose, ¶ [0026]: “The machining system 20 will be described herein in relation to a drilling operation … a drill-on-the-fly (DOE) machining operation to define cooling holes”; ¶ [0052]: “the machined elements are a plurality of holes drilled through the lining”; ¶ [0041]: “the elements are provided (e.g. machined) on the actual part”; the examiner interprets the plurality of holes drilled through the component as teaching forming a plurality of component holes in the component using the laser source, wherein the plurality of component holes includes the component hole).
Regarding claim 8, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 1, wherein a quantity of the plurality of points is a predetermined value for the component (Brogardh, ¶ [0043]: “To obtain a satisfactory result, at least three points should be measured for each object surface, and at least two points should be measured for each edge line on the object”; ¶ [0091]: “When the criterion is fulfilled, the system informs the operator of the fact that the measuring is done”; the examiner interprets the prescribed number of measuring points for a surface or object as teaching a quantity of the plurality of points being a predetermined value for the component).
Regarding claim 9, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 1, wherein the position measurement probe (Brogardh: 14, “measuring tip”) is a touch probe (Brogardh, ¶ [0023]: “the system comprises a measuring device adapted to being in contact with the surface of the object during measuring”; ¶ [0042]: “The outer part of the measuring tip is intended for being brought into contact with the surface of the object 4”; the examiner interprets the measuring tip 14 that physically contacts the object surface during measurement as a touch probe).
Regarding claim 10, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 9, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to identify the position of the drilling surface at the plurality of points on the drilling surface by positioning the position measurement probe (Brogardh: 14, “measuring tip”) with the machining system (Brogardh, Fig. 1: 1, “system”) to contact the drilling surface at each of the plurality of points (Brogardh, ¶ [0005]: “The measuring points correspond to the positions of the robot when a predefined point on a tool, or on a measuring device corresponding to the current tool, measures different points on the surfaces of the object”; ¶ [0012]: “The measuring points correspond to positions of the robot when the tool, or a measuring device corresponding to the current tool, is in contact with different points on the surface of the object”; ¶ [0042]: “ The outer part of the measuring tip is intended for being brought into contact with the surface of the object 4”; ¶ [0043]: “The control system of the robot calculates the positions of the measuring points”; the examiner interprets the robot positioning the measuring tip into contact with different points on the object surface and calculating the positions of those measuring points as teaching identifying the position of the drilling surface at the plurality of points by positioning the position measurement probe to contact the drilling surface at each of the plurality of points).
Regarding claim 11, Bellerose teaches, in Fig. 2,
a method (¶ [0016]: “method”) for machining a component using a CNC assembly (¶ [0016]: “Fig. 3 is a flow chart of a method of making a part, … using the system of Fig. 2,” which is annotated as a “CNC assembly” in Fig. 2), the method (“method”) comprising:
measuring a deviation distance (52) of the component (48) from a three-dimensional (3D) component model (24) for the component (48) using a position measurement device (38) of a machining tool (34) at a plurality of points on the component (48) (¶ [0028]; ¶ [0030]; ¶ [0043]: “The comparator 50 then compares the final digitized actual surface 64 with the nominal part … to evaluate … an accuracy of the machining operation”; the examiner interprets the tridimensional comparison between the digitized actual surface and the nominal surface as measuring a deviation distance of the component from the three-dimensional component model at a plurality of points on the component);
determining a compensation vector (“compensated vector”) of a nominal hole (“hole”) of the component (48) using the measured deviation distance (52) (¶ [0030]; ¶ [0032]; ¶ [0034]; the examiner interprets the correlation or best fit 52 representing differences between the actual surface and the nominal surface as the clamed measured deviation distance, and further interprets the compensated vector (I’, J’, K’) generated using those differences as the claimed compensation vector of the nominal hole);
determining a compensated laser source stand-off position (30) and a compensated laser source orientation (32) for the nominal hole (“hole”) using the determined compensation vector (“compensated vector”) (¶ [0023]; ¶ [0032]; ¶ [0034]; ¶ [0026]; the examiner interprets the actual location 30 determined using the compensated vector as the claimed compensated laser source stand-off position and the actual orientation 32 determined using the compensated vector as the claimed compensated laser source orientation for the nominal hole);
positioning a laser source (¶ [0054]) of the machining tool (34) in the compensated laser source stand-off position (30) and the compensated laser source orientation (32) (¶ [0023]; ¶ [0032]; the examiner interprets the machining system utilizing the generated actual location 30 and actual orientation 32 for laser drilling operations as positioning a laser source of the machining tool in the compensated laser source stand-off position and compensated laser source orientation); and
forming a component hole (“hole”) in the component (48) using the laser source (¶ [0054]) of the machining tool (34) by directing a laser beam to the component (48) with the laser source (¶ [0054]) of the machining tool (34) in the compensated laser source stand-off position (30) and the compensated laser source orientation (32) (¶ [0026]; ¶ [0041]; ¶ [0052]; ¶ [0054]; the examiner interprets Bellerose’s compensated drilling locations and orientations used for laser drilling holes in a part as teaching forming a component hole by directing a laser beam to the component while the laser source of the machining tool is positioned at the compensated location and orientation).
PNG
media_image5.png
739
615
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Bellerose
Regarding claim 11, Bellerose does not explicitly teach a position measurement device is a probe.
However, Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 1, a position measurement device is a probe (14, “measuring tip”; ¶ [0023]: “the system comprises a measuring device adapted to being in contact with the surface of the object during measuring”; ¶ [0042]: “The outer part of the measuring tip is intended for being brought into contact with the surface of the object 4”; the examiner interprets the measuring tip 14 used to contact and measure points on the object surface as a position measurement probe).
Bellerose and Brogardh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compensating techniques for differences between an actual workpiece and a nominal geometric model during a machining operation. Therefore, 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 laser machining system of Bellerose to utilize the probe-based measurement technique as taught by Brogardh, for the purpose of “adjust[ing] the positions … in dependence of the deviations between the measured values and the model … [such that] it is possible to compensate a robot path for all geometric and kinematic errors” (Brogardh, ¶ [0006]), thereby enabling the system to “easily and with high accuracy, find optimum positions and orientations for the measuring points” (Brogardh, ¶ [0018]) and improving the accuracy of machining operations performed on an actual workpiece relative to a nominal geometric model.
Regarding claim 13, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches the method (Bellerose, ¶ [0016]: “method”) of claim 11, wherein the component (Bellerose: 48, “part”) has a first dimension, the 3D component (Bellerose: 24, “nominal surface”) has a second dimension corresponding to the first dimension, and the first dimension is different than the second dimension (Bellerose, ¶ [0021]: “The nominal tridimensional definition corresponds to a model of the entire part or of a tridimensional surface of the part and includes at least a nominal surface 24 of the part”; ¶ [0030]: “The comparator 50 performs a tridimensional comparison between the digitized actual surface 40 and the nominal surface 24 to find a correlation or best fit 52 therebetween”; ¶ [0032]: “The calculator 54 then generates the actual location 30 and the actual orientation 32 for each element”; the examiner interprets the tridimensional comparison between the actual surface 40 of the actual part and the nominal surface 24 of the part, together with generation of actual locations and orientations based on that comparison, as teaching that a dimension of the actual component differs from a corresponding dimension of the 3D component model).
Regarding claim 15, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the method (Bellerose, ¶ [0016]: “method”) of claim 11, wherein determining the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) includes determining the compensation vector (46) using the deviation distance (48, “error vector”) between a closest one of the plurality of points (44, “measuring points”) to the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”) (Brogardh, ¶ [0083]; ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0088]; the examiner interprets the closest error vector associated with the closest measuring point as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between a closest one of the plurality of points and the nominal hole, wherein the error vector represents a distance between the actual surface and the CAD model at the closest measuring point).
Regarding claim 16, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the method (Bellerose, ¶ [0016]: “method”) of claim 11, wherein determining the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) includes determining the compensation vector (46) using the deviation distance (48, “error vector”) between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) adjacent the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”) (Brogardh, ¶ [0080]: “A correction vector is calculated for each subsurface. … the average value of the error vectors for the measuring points belonging to the subsurface could be used as a correction vector”; ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0083]; the examiner interprets the average value of the error vectors associated with a plurality of closest measuring points as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points adjacent to the nominal hole, wherein the error vectors represent distances between the actual surface and the CAD model at each point of the adjacent subset).
Regarding claim 17, Bellerose teaches, in Fig. 2,
A computer numeric control (CNC) assembly (annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) comprising:
a machining system (20, “machining system”) including a laser source (¶ [0054]: “machining … apply to manufacturing methods in which a part configuration or shape is changed by a tool: laser drilling,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a machining system including a laser source); and
a controller including a processor (50, “comparator” and 54, “compensation calculator”, including 56, “calculator”; the examiner interprets comparator 50 and compensation calculator 54 including calculator 56 as collectively corresponding to the claimed controller including a processor because these components perform the recited comparison, calculation, and compensation operations as further discussed below) to:
measure a surface deviation (52, “correlation” or “best fit”) of a component (48) from a three-dimensional (3D) component model (24) for the component (48) by a position measurement device (38, “scanner”) on the component (48) at a plurality of points and measuring a deviation distance (52) between the component (48) at the plurality of points and the 3D component model (24) (¶ [0028]; ¶ [0030]; ¶ [0043]: “The comparator 50 then compares the final digitized actual surface 64 with the nominal part … to evaluate … an accuracy of the machining operation”; the examiner interprets the tridimensional comparison and resulting correlation or best fit 52 between the digitized actual surface and the nominal surface as representing both the claimed surface deviation and the claimed deviation distance between the component and the three-dimensional component model); and
form a plurality of component holes (“holes”) of the component (48) by, sequentially,
determining a compensation vector (“compensated vector”) for a nominal hole (“hole”) corresponding to one of the plurality of component holes using the measured deviation distance (52) (¶ [0032]; ¶ [0033]: “projects the nominal location 26 of each machined element on the digitized actual surface 40 to obtain the corresponding actual location 30 for that element”; ¶ [0034]; ¶ [0030]; ¶ [0026]; the examiner interprets the correlation or best fit 52 as the claimed measured deviation distance and further interprets the compensated vector (I’, J’, K’) generated for each machined element corresponding to a hole as the clamed compensation vector for a nominal hole, wherein the compensation vectors are determined sequentially as the machining system generates actual locations and orientations for each of the plurality of holes to be machined);
determining a compensated laser source stand-off position (30, “actual location”) and a compensated laser source orientation (32, “actual orientation”) for the nominal hole (“hole”) using the determined compensation vector (“compensated vector”) (¶ [0023]; ¶ [0032]; ¶ [0034]; ¶ [0026]; ¶ [0054]; the examiner interprets the actual location 30 determined using the compensated vector as the claimed compensated laser source stand-off position and the actual orientation 32 determined using the compensated vector as the claimed compensated laser source orientation for the nominal hole corresponding to one of the plurality of component holes);
positioning the laser source (¶ [0054]) in the compensated laser source stand-off position (30) and the compensated laser source orientation (32) with the machining system (20, “machining system”) (¶ [0023]; ¶ [0032]; the examiner interprets the machining system utilizing the generated actual location 30 and actual orientation 32 for laser drilling operations as positioning the laser source in the compensated laser source stand-off position and compensated laser source orientation with the machining system); and
directing a laser beam to the component (48) with the laser source (¶ [0054]) at the compensated laser source stand-off position (30) and the compensated laser source orientation (32) (¶ [0026]; ¶ [0041]; ¶ [0052]; ¶ [0054]; the examiner interprets Bellerose’s compensated drilling locations and orientations used for laser drilling holes in a part as teaching directing a laser beam to the component with the laser source at the compensated laser source stand-off position and the compensated laser source orientation).
Regarding claim 17, Bellerose does not explicitly teach
a machining system includes a robotic arm and a touch probe;
a controller including a processor is in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions to be executed by the process; and
a position measurement device is a probe.
However, Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 1,
a machining system (1, “system”) includes a robotic arm (9, “first robot arm” and 10, “second robot arm”) and a touch probe (14, “measuring tip”) (¶ [0041]: “The robot … comprising a first robot arm 9 … [and] a second arm 10; ¶ [0042]: “A measuring device is mounted on the tool holder, which measuring device comprises a measuring tip 14”);
a controller (3, “control system”) including a processor (5, “computer”; the examiner interprets the computer 5 executing the disclosed software instructions as corresponding to the claimed a processor) is in communication with a non-transitory memory (“internal memory”) storing instructions (“computer program” or “software”) to be executed by the process (¶ [0020]: “a computer program directly loadable into the internal memory of the computer”; ¶ [0021]: “computer readable medium comprising computer program comprising instructions for making a processor to perform the steps”; ¶ [0041]: “a control system 3 … comprises a computer 5, in which the software of the invention is stored, and in which the software is executed,” which the examiner interprets the disclosed computer, internal memory, and stored software instructions as teaching the claimed controller including a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions to be executed by the processor); and
a position measurement device is a probe (14, “measuring tip”; ¶ [0023]: “the system comprises a measuring device adapted to being in contact with the surface of the object during measuring”; ¶ [0042]: “The outer part of the measuring tip is intended for being brought into contact with the surface of the object 4”; the examiner interprets the measuring tip 14 used to contact and measure points on the object surface as a position measurement probe).
Bellerose and Brogardh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compensating techniques for differences between an actual workpiece and a nominal geometric model during a machining operation. Therefore, 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 laser machining system of Bellerose to utilize the robotic arm-based probe measurement technique and computer-implemented control architecture as taught by Brogardh, for the purpose of “adjust[ing] the positions … in dependence of the deviations between the measured values and the model … [such that] it is possible to compensate a robot path for all geometric and kinematic errors” (Brogardh, ¶ [0006]), thereby enabling the system to “easily and with high accuracy, find optimum positions and orientations for the measuring points” (Brogardh, ¶ [0018]) and improving the accuracy of machining operations performed on an actual workpiece.
Regarding claim 18, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 17, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using the deviation distance (48, “error vector”) between a closest one of the plurality of points (44, “measuring points”) to the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”) (Brogardh, ¶ [0083]: “An alternative to the using of subsurfaces is compensation with the closest error vector for closest measuring point”; ¶ [0082]: “A number of error vectors 48 are obtained, which lengths and directions are decided by the distance and direction between the measuring points 44 and corresponding points 45 on the surface of the CAD model”; ¶ [0088]: “the compensation is done by means of the closest error vector in the closest object plan”; the examiner interprets the closest error vector associated with the closest measuring point as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between a closest one of the plurality of points and the nominal hole, wherein the error vector represents a distance between the actual surface and the CAD model at the closest measuring point).
Regarding claim 19, Bellerose and Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 17, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using the deviation distance (48, “error vector”) between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) adjacent the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”) (Brogardh, ¶ [0080]: “A correction vector is calculated for each subsurface. … the average value of the error vectors for the measuring points belonging to the subsurface could be used as a correction vector”; ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0083]; the examiner interprets the average value of the error vectors associated with a plurality of closest measuring points as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points adjacent to the nominal hole, wherein the error vectors represent distances between the actual surface and the CAD model at each point of the adjacent subset).
Regarding claim 20, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 19, wherein the instructions(Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using an average distance of the deviation distance (48, “error vector”) at each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) (Brogardh, ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0083]; ¶ [0080]; the examiner interprets the average value of the error vectors as teaching determining the compensation vector using an average distance of the deviation distance at each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellerose et al. (US 20080250659) hereinafter Bellerose, in view of Brogardh (US 20060181236), and further in view of Gosselin et al. (US 20230173608).
Regarding claim 5, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches, in Fig. 6 of Brogardh, the CNC assembly (Bellerose, annotated Fig. 2: “CNC assembly”) of claim 3, wherein the instructions (Brogardh: “computer program” or “software”), when executed by the processor (Brogardh, ¶ [0020]; ¶ [0021]; ¶ [0041]), further cause the processor to determine the compensation vector (46, “correction vector”) using an average distance of the deviation distance (48, “error vector”) at each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44), and the average distance of the deviation distance (48) is determined based on a proximity of each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points (44) to the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”) (Brogardh, ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0083]: “by using the average value of the error vectors of the n number of closest measuring points”; ¶ [0080]: “A correction vector is calculated for each subsurface. … the average value of the error vectors for the measuring points belonging to the subsurface could be used as a correction vector”; the examiner interprets the average value of the error vectors associated with a plurality of closest measuring points as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points adjacent to the nominal hole, wherein the error vectors represent distances between the actual surface and the CAD model at each point of the adjacent subset).
Bellerose and Brogardh does not explicitly teach determining an average distance as a weighted average based on the proximity of each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points to the nominal hole.
However, Gosselin teaches a controller (Fig. 2: 210) of a CNC processing system (Fig. 2: 200), configured to
determine an average distance as a weighted average (¶ [0241]: “using an inverse distance weighting function”) based on the proximity of each point of the adjacent subset of the plurality of points to the nominal hole (¶ [0242]: “the inverse distance weighting function uses a combination of the heights of the measurement points multiplied by weights that range from 0 to 1 depending on the distance between the estimate point and each of the measurement points … measurement points that are closer to the estimate point are weighted more heavily than measurement points that are further away from the estimate point”; ¶ [0244]: “ the inverse distance weighting function in some embodiments may be limited to the four closest measurement points rather than relying on all ten measurement points”; ¶ [0266]: “estimating the height at an estimate point based at least in part on a distance between the estimate point and one or more measurement points includes using an inverse distance weighting function”; the examiner interprets the inverse distance weighting function as determining a weighted average, the estimate point as corresponding to the nominal hole location for which compensation is being determined, and the closest measurement points as corresponding to the claimed adjacent subset of the plurality of points, such that points closer to the nominal hole are assigned greater weight than points farther from the nominal hole).
Bellerose, Brogardh and Gosselin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a CNC machine and a measurement assembly utilizing measurement data to determine positional corrections and improve machining accuracy. Gosselin, ¶ [0004]. Therefore, 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 average-value compensation technique taught by Bellerose and Brogardh by determining the average using a weighted average based on the proximity of the measurement points as taught by Gosselin, in order to weight “measurement points … closer to the estimate point … more heavily than measurement points … further away from the estimate point” (Gosselin, ¶ [0242]), and to utilize “the … closest measurement points” (Gosselin, ¶ [0244]), when determining the compensation vector.
PNG
media_image6.png
511
553
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Gosselin
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellerose et al. (US 20080250659) hereinafter Bellerose, in view of Brogardh (US 20060181236), and further in view of
Turcotte et al. (US 20200001404) hereinafter Turcotte.
Regarding claim 12, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches
the method (Bellerose, ¶ [0016]: “method”) of claim 11, including the component (Bellerose: 48, “part”); wherein
forming the component hole in the component (Bellerose: 48) (Bellerose, ¶ [0009]: “drilling each of the holes on the actual surface of the part”; ¶ [0025]: “drilling machine”; ¶ [0041]: “the elements are provided (e.g. machined) on the actual part”).
Bellerose and Brogardh does not explicitly teach the component includes an original body portion and a replacement body portion disposed on the original body portion, wherein forming the component hole includes forming the component hole in the replacement body portion.
However, Turcotte teaches, in Fig. 5, a method (¶ [0061]: “method 200 for repairing part 22”), wherein
the component (22, “part”) includes an original body portion and a replacement body portion disposed on the original body portion (¶ [0062]: “A new replacement portion of base material can be added to the base material being reused by welding,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a replacement body portion disposed on an original body portion), wherein forming the component hole (20, “hole”) includes forming the component hole (20) in the replacement body portion (¶ [0062]: “any holes 20 that were located in the removed damaged portion of the base material would have to be re-drilled through the base material and through the replacement TBC 24,” which the examiner interprets as teaching forming a component hole in the replacement body portion after the replacement portion of base material is added to the base material being reused).
Bellerose, Brogardh and Turcotte are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of machining and repairing components having holes based on measured and nominal geometric data of components. Therefore, 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 method of Bellerose and Brogardh to further incorporate the repair technique as taught by Turcotte wherein a replacement body portion is added to an existing component and holes are reformed in the repaired region, in order to “reduce scrap material and repair costs by reusing the based material of the part instead of having to replace the part entirely.” Turcotte, ¶ [0049].
PNG
media_image7.png
501
684
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Turcotte
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellerose et al. (US 20080250659) hereinafter Bellerose, in view of Brogardh (US 20060181236), and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20180299260) hereinafter Nakamura.
Regarding claim 14, Bellerose in view of Brogardh teaches
the method (Bellerose: ¶ [0016]: “method”) of claim 11, further comprising
identifying the measured deviation distance (Brogardh: 48, “error vector”; ¶ [0079]: “Those deviations are stored in the calculating module 18”; ¶ [0082]: “A number of error vectors 48 are obtained”), and
performing the step of determining the compensation vector (Brogardh: 46, “correction vector”) of the nominal hole (Bellerose: “hole”) of the component (Bellerose: 48, “part”) using the measured deviation distance (Brogardh: 48) (Brogardh, ¶ [0082]; ¶ [0083]: “by using the average value of the error vectors of the n number of closest measuring points”; ¶ [0080]: “A correction vector is calculated for each subsurface. … the average value of the error vectors for the measuring points belonging to the subsurface could be used as a correction vector”; the examiner interprets the average value of the error vectors associated with a plurality of closest measuring points as teaching determining the compensation vector using a deviation distance between an adjacent subset of the plurality of points adjacent to the nominal hole, wherein the error vectors represent distances between the actual surface and the CAD model at each point of the adjacent subset).
Bellerose and Brogardh does not explicitly teach identifying the measured deviation distance exceeds a deviation distance threshold and, in response to the identification that the measured deviation distance exceeds the deviation distance threshold.
However, Nakamura teaches, in Fig. 9, a laser processing system (100) including a motion correcting section (106; ¶ [0067]: “a motion correcting section 106 configured to correct the operation of the moving device 102 based on the three-dimensional measurement data M”) configured to
identify the measured deviation distance (¶ [0067]: “error”; “the error between the target position and the three-dimensional measurement data M”) exceeds a deviation distance threshold (¶ [0067]: “predetermined threshold value”) and, in response to the identification that the measured deviation distance exceeds the deviation distance threshold (¶ [0067]: “perform correction to change the position command for the moving device 102 in a case where error between the target position and the three-dimensional measurement data M exceeds a predetermined threshold value”; the examiner interprets the error between the target position and the three-dimensional measurement data M as the claimed measured deviation distance, the predetermined threshold value as the claimed deviation distance threshold, and the correction/offset based on the error as teaching performing compensation in response to the measured deviation distance exceeding the deviation distance threshold).
Bellerose, Brogardh and Nakamura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a machining and processing system having an adaptive correction functionality based on measured positional deviations of a workpiece. Therefore, 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 method of Bellerose and Brogardh to further identify whether the measured deviation distance exceeds a predetermined deviation threshold and perform compensation in response thereto as taught by Nakamura, in order to “improve a processing accuracy due to the appropriate corrected command, and to improve a processing quality due to, e.g., parameter change based on the appropriate verification.” Nakamura, ¶ [0050].
PNG
media_image8.png
546
511
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Nakamura
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Auxier et al. (US 10955815), Blais et al. (US 10025289), Compagnat et al. (US 20170038760), Li et al. (US 20140257542), Rangarajan et al. (US 8578579), Hastilow (US 8218001), Mekid (US 7911614), Hammond et al. (US 20090112357), Graham et al. (US 7472478), Hoebel et al. (US 7329832), Emer (US 6380512), Wampler et al. (US 5898590).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights