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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged.
As such, claims 1-12 are elected for examination and claims 13-26 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024, 01/07/2025, and 08/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us patent application publication no. 2018/0133840 to Noriyama et al. (hereinafter Noriyama) in view of us patent application publication no. 2019/0076964 to Ichinohe et al. (hereinafter Ichinohe).
For claims 1, Nori as applied . A method for tracking multiple beams in weld pools, the method comprising:
obtaining an input video feed that includes a plurality of frames having a plurality of beams for weld pools (see, e.g., pars. 38 and 51 and FIGS. 2 and 5, which tech obtaining a video that includes a plurality of frames, each having at least one beam for a molten pools);
for each frame of the plurality of frames of the input video feed, creating a gradient mask that identifies one or more pixels in the respective frame for a weld pool (see, e.g., pars. 45-49 and 54 and FIGS. 3-C and 4B-C, which teach for each image, setting a luminance/temperature threshold that identifies pixels with luminance values that are above the threshold);
detecting and filtering contiguous regions based on the gradient mask to obtain a pixel mask for each contour of a weld pool (see, e.g., pars. 36, 41-49, 52, and 54 and FIGS. 2, 3A-C, 4B-C, and 5, which teach deriving a shape of the molten pool by detecting and filtering pixels based on the threshold); and
identifying one or more beam locations within the weld pool based on the pixel mask for each contour (see, e.g., pars. 43-45, 46 and 49 and FIGS. 3A-C and 4A-C, which teach identifying the focus position of the light beam within the molten pool based on the pixels with the luminance values above the threshold).
For “detecting and filtering contiguous regions based on the gradient mask to obtain a pixel mask for each contour of a weld pool,” Noriyama as applied teaches deriving a shape of the molten pool by detecting and filtering pixels based on the thresholds (see, e.g., pars. 36, 41-49, 52, and 54 and FIGS. 2, 3A-C, 4B-C, and 5). While the teaching of Noriyama is sufficient to implicitly teach or at least suggest that the filtered pixels would correspond to the pixel mask for the contour of the molten pool, for the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner relies on Ichinohe in the analogous art that explicitly teaches obtaining the filtered pixels as a rectangular pixel mask that corresponds to the shape of the molten pool (see, e.g., pars. 59-64 and FIG. 4 of Ichinohe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Noriyama to visualize a mask as taught by Ichinohe because doing so would filter out a non-contiguous sputter and allow acquiring a correct length/width of the molten pool (see par. 60 of Ichinohe).
For claim 2, Noriyama in view of Ichinohe teaches that identifying the one or more pixels comprises:
for each pixel in the respective frame, calculating a time-based derivative of intensity for the respective pixel based on the respective frame and its predecessor frame in the video feed (see, e.g., pars. 41, 46, 49, and 51 and FIGS. 4A, 4C and 5 of Noriyama, which determining a change in the luminance/temperature values of the molten pool with time); and
determining potential locations of weld pools based on the time-based derivative of intensity for each pixel (see, e.g., pars. 45-47, 49, 51, and 54 and FIGS. 3B, 4A, 4C, and 5 of Noriyama, which teach determining the traveling direction, distance and position of the light beam based on the change in the luminance/temperature values).
For claim 3, Noriyama in view of Ichinohe teaches that determining potential locations of the weld pools comprises: computing at least one of: (i) relative intensity of each pixel with respect to background imagery, (ii) light emission intensity of material used for welding in near- infrared (NIR) and infrared (IR) spectrums, or (iii) a rapid decrease in intensity (see, e.g., pars. 46 and 49 and FIGS. 3B-C and 4C, which teach that determining the position of the light beam includes detecting the decrease in the temperature/luminance from the focus position to the trailing edge).
For claim 8, Noriyama as applied teaches that obtaining the pixel mask for each contour of a weld pool comprises:
detecting contours based on the gradient mask (see, e.g., pars. 41, 42, 44, 48 and 52 and FIGS. 2, 3A-C, 4B, and 5, which teach detecting a shape of the molten pool based on the threshold).
Noriyama as applied does not explicitly teach “filtering the contours by size with a high-pass filter in order to eliminate any regions too small to reasonably be a weld pool; and outputting the pixel mask for each remaining contour.”
Ichinohe in the analogous art that explicitly teaches removing a small sputter and visualizing the filtered pixels as a form of a rectangular mask (see, e.g., pars. 59-64 and FIG. 4 of Ichinohe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Noriyama to visualize a mask as taught by Ichinohe because doing so would filter out a non-contiguous sputter and allow acquiring a correct length/width of the molten pool (see par. 60 of Ichinohe).
For claim 11, Noriyama in view of Ichinohe teaches a computer system (see, e.g., pars. 35-36 and FIG. 2 of Noriyama) comprising:
one or more processors (see, e.g., pars. 16-20 and 56 and FIG. 2 of Noriyama); and
memory (see, e.g., pars. 16-20 and 56 and FIG. 2 of Noriyama) and ;
wherein the memory stores one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors (see, e.g., pars. 16-20 and 56 and FIG. 2 of Noriyama), and the one or more programs comprise instructions for performing the method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
For claim 12, Noriyama in view of Ichinohe teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured for execution by a computer system having one or more processors and memory (see, e.g., pars. 16-20 and 56 and FIG. 2 of Noriyama), the one or more programs comprising instructions for performing the method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noriyama in view of Ichinohe and further in view of Jp patent application publication no. 2005014027 to Harada et al. (hereinafter Harada)
For claim 4, Noriyama in view of Ichinohe teaches that determining potential locations of the weld pools comprises:
thresholding the time-based derivative for each pixel to create the gradient mask, thereby marking pixels with either a rapid increase or decrease in value as possible weld pool locations (see, e.g., pars. 45-49 and 54 and FIGS. 3-C and 4B-C of Noriyama, which teach setting a luminance/temperature thresholds, thereby identifying pixels with a rapid decrease in luminance/temperature as possible molten pool portion).
Noriyama in view of Ichinohe does not explicitly teach using a high-low pass filter to threshold. Harada in the analogous art teaches using a high-pass filter and a low-pass filter to threshold (see, e.g., par. 22 of Harada).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Noriyama in view of Ichinohe to use high and low pass filters as taught by Harada because doing so would remove the reflected light of the laser, more clearly obtaining the shape of the object (see par. 22 of Harada).
For claim 6, Noriyama in view of Ichinohe and Harada teaches defining a respective threshold for each weld type (see, e.g., pars. 37, 48-49 and 54 and FIGS. 3B-C and 4B-C of Noriyama, which teach defining threshold for a metal laminating and shaping type of welding).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 5, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“the high-low pass filter is applied to the time-based derivative and includes two threshold values including (i) a low value that is a negative number, for which delta values below the low value represent a phase change from powder to liquid metal, and (ii) a high value that is a positive number, above which either there is increasing heat or a beam is crossing over a pixel.”
In regard to claim 7, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“using a morphological close filter on the gradient mask to close any gaps between isolated pixels surrounding a possible weld pool location.”
In regard to claim 9, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“wherein identifying the one or more beam locations within each weld pool comprises:
identifying a peak intensity by computing a local maximum value within the pixel mask for each contour;
identifying missing beams for each contour by determining if the peak intensity is below a predetermined range;
applying a high-pass threshold to surrounding area based on the peak intensity to determine a spot area; and
computing coordinates of the one or more beam location based on a mean value or center of mass of the spot area.”
In regard to claim 10, claim 10 depends on objected claim 9. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, claim 10 is also indicated as objected subject matter.
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Kodama et al. (us pat. pub. 2014/0326705)
Describes a welding position detecting apparatus for laser beam welding. One embodiment includes: an imaging device that captures, at a predetermined time interval, images of an irradiated portion of a welding material irradiated with a welding laser beam, and a surrounding area thereof, of a welding material; an image processing device that identifies a position of the irradiated portion irradiated with the welding laser beam by performing image processing calculating, from two or more images acquired by the imaging device, a direction and an amount of parallel movement of points in the images; and a display device that displays the position of the irradiated portion irradiated with the welding laser beam, the position being identified by the image processing device.
Nitani (us pat. pub. 2018/0141121)
Describes shaping a high-precision three-dimensional laminated and shaped object based on a captured image. In one embodiment, a three-dimensional laminating and shaping apparatus includes a material ejector that ejects a material of a three-dimensional laminated and shaped object onto a shaping table, a light beam irradiator that irradiates the ejected material with a light beam, an image capturer that captures a molten pool formed by irradiating the ejected material with the light beam, a scanning direction determiner that determines a scanning direction of the light beam with respect to a shaped object based on a change in a position of the shaping table, a detector that detects the molten pool based on an image captured by the image capturer and the scanning direction, and a shaping controller that controls at least one of an output of the light beam and a scanning speed of the light beam based on the detected molten pool.
Kitchen et al. (us pat. pub. 2021/0170676)
Describes methods to in-situ monitor production of additive manufacturing products. One embodiment collects images from the deposition process on a layer-by-layer basis, including a void image of the pattern left in a slurry layer after deposition of a layer and a displacement image formed by immersing the just-deposited layer in a renewed slurry layer. Image properties of the void image and displacement image are corrected and then compared to a binary expected image from a computer generated model to identify defects in the just-deposited layer on a layer-by-layer basis. Additional methods use the output from the comparison to form a 3D model corresponding to at least a portion of the additive manufacturing product. Components to control the additive manufacturing operation based on digital model data and to in-situ monitor successive layers for manufacturing defects can be embodied in a computer system or computer-aided machine, such as a computer controlled additive manufacturing machine.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Table 1 and form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676