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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 1, “An additively manufacturing method” should be corrected to –An additive manufacturing method--.
In line 4 of claim 1, “the additively manufacturing method” should be corrected to –the additive manufacturing method--.
In line 1 of claims 2-12, “The additively manufacturing method” should be corrected to –The additive manufacturing method--.
In claim 14, “an additively manufacturing procedure” should be corrected to --an additive manufacturing procedure--.
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 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:
In claim 13, a filler metal feed speed measuring unit is interpreted as an encoder according to the specification at ¶15.
In claim 13, a reference welding speed setting unit is interpreted as a database, formula, or table on a CPU according to the specification at ¶24, ¶31, ¶17.
In claim 13, a bead height measuring unit is interpreted as a laser sensor or camera according to the specification at ¶13.
In claim 13, a correction value setting unit is interpreted as module to calculate a planned height error on a CPU according to the specification at ¶40-¶41, ¶17.
In claim 13, a welding speed determination unit is interpreted as a module with a reduced gain (slope) model, such as a linear equation on a CPU according to the specification at ¶42-¶44, ¶17.
In claim 13, a bead forming unit is interpreted as a welding robot, a robot controller, and a power supply unit according to the specification at ¶19.
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 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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “plural layers of the weld beads” and then proceeds to refer to “the formed weld bead” and “the weld bead to be formed.” It is not clear whether these later recitations are different weld beads, i.e., different layers, or different parts of the same weld bead. It appears from Fig 5 that that intent is for them to be different parts of the same weld bead, i.e. in the same layer. The following corrections are proposed to clarify the matter:
in lines 3-4, “form a weld bead, and plural layers of the weld beads are deposited to build” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –form plural layers of weld beads to build--.
in line 7, “the weld bead” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a first weld bead of the plural layers--.
in line 10, “the formed weld bead” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a formed portion of the first weld bead--.
in line 12, “the weld bead to be formed” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a to-be-formed portion of the first weld bead--.
If this strategy is adopted, further instances of “the weld bead” in claims 1-12 should be corrected to --the first weld bead--.
Claim 3 recites “the set value of the filler metal feed speed.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --a set value of the filler metal feed speed--.
Claim 6 recites “each bead formation path.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This is best corrected by amending claim 1 to include one or more bead formation paths. For example, in lines 3-4, “form a weld bead, and plural layers of the weld beads are deposited to build” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –form plural layers of weld beads along one or more bead formation paths to build--.
Claim 7 recites “each bead formation path.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This is best corrected by amending claim 1 to include one or more bead formation paths. For example, in lines 3-4, “form a weld bead, and plural layers of the weld beads are deposited to build” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –form plural layers of weld beads along one or more bead formation paths to build--.
Claim 8 recites “the measured actual height of the weld bead.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --the measured height of the weld bead--.
Claim 9 recites “the measured actual height of the weld bead.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --the measured height of the weld bead--.
Claim 10 recites “the measured actual height of the weld bead.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --the measured height of the weld bead--.
Claim 8 recites “the actual height.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --the measured height of the weld bead--.
Claim 13 recites “plural layers of the weld beads” and then proceeds to refer to “the formed weld bead” and “the weld bead to be formed.” It is not clear whether these later recitations are different weld beads, i.e., different layers, or different parts of the same weld bead. It appears from Fig 5 that that intent is for them to be different parts of the same weld bead, i.e. in the same layer. The following corrections are proposed to clarify the matter:
in lines 3-4, “form a weld bead, and plural layers of the weld beads are deposited to build” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –form plural layers of weld beads to build--.
in lines 6-7, “the weld bead” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a first weld bead of the plural layers--.
in line 11-12, “the formed weld bead” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a formed portion of the first weld bead--.
in line 14, “the weld bead to be formed” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a to-be-formed portion of the first weld bead--.
If this strategy is adopted, further instances of “the weld bead” in claim 13 should be corrected to --the first weld bead--.
Claim 13 recites “configured to correct the reference welding speed with the welding speed correction value and to determine a welding speed at which the weld bead is formed.” This is currently written as two different functions, and it is not clear whether two different functions are required, or whether correcting the reference welding speed produces the determined welding speed. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to -- configured to correct the reference welding speed with the welding speed correction value to determine a welding speed at which the weld bead is formed--.
Claim 14 recites “plural layers of the weld beads” and then proceeds to refer to “the formed weld bead” and “the weld bead to be formed.” It is not clear whether these later recitations are different weld beads, i.e., different layers, or different parts of the same weld bead. It appears from Fig 5 that that intent is for them to be different parts of the same weld bead, i.e. in the same layer. The following corrections are proposed to clarify the matter:
in lines 5-6, “form a weld bead, and plural layers of the weld beads are deposited to build” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –form plural layers of weld beads to build--.
in lines 9, “the weld bead” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a first weld bead of the plural layers--.
in line 12, “the formed weld bead” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a formed portion of the first weld bead--.
in line 14, “the weld bead to be formed” has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a to-be-formed portion of the first weld bead--.
If this strategy is adopted, further instances of “the weld bead” in claim 14 should be corrected to --the first weld bead--.
Claim 14 recites “correcting the reference welding speed with the welding speed correction value and determining a welding speed at which the weld bead is formed.” This is currently written as two different functions, and it is not clear whether two different functions are required, or whether correcting the reference welding speed produces the determined welding speed. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to -- correcting the reference welding speed with the welding speed correction value to determine a welding speed at which the weld bead is formed--.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The nearest prior art is considered to be Daniel (US 2020/0038984).
Regarding claim 1, Daniel discloses:
An additively manufacturing method in which, while moving a welding torch having a tip portion (contact tip 67, see Fig 3, ¶48) to which a filler metal (consumable wire welding electrode 64, see Fig 3, ¶47) is supplied, the supplied filler metal is melted and solidified to form a weld bead (layer), and plural layers of the weld beads are deposited to build an additively manufactured object (¶52), the additively manufacturing method comprising:
measuring a filler metal feed speed at which the filler metal is fed to the welding torch during the formation of the weld bead (¶77 “The welding power source 72 is configured to sample, in real time, instantaneous parameter pairs during a robotic welding additive manufacturing process while creating a current weld layer of a 3D workpiece part. Each instantaneous parameter pair of the instantaneous parameter pairs includes a welding output current and a wire feed speed.” ¶85 “a short term running average (STRA) ratio (WFS/AMPS or AMPS/WFS) of the instantaneous WFS1 and the instantaneous welding output current is being generated during deposition of the current welding layer”);
acquiring a reference welding speed (preset travel speed, see Fig 12, ¶87-¶88) that is a moving speed of the welding torch …;
measuring a height of the formed weld bead (indirectly by contact tip to work distance, CWTD);
acquiring a welding speed correction value with which the height of the weld bead to be formed is adjusted …
correcting the reference welding speed with the welding speed correction value and determining a welding speed at which the weld bead is formed; and
forming the weld bead at the determined welding speed (adjusted travel speed, see Fig 12).
Daniel does not disclose:
[the reference welding speed] corresponding to the measured filler metal feed speed (the source of the preset travel speed is not specified)
[acquiring the welding speed correction value] based on a difference between the measured height of the weld bead and a height of a tip of the filler metal that protrudes from the tip of the welding torch; (since Daniel uses CTWD2 as a stand-in for height, this is not possible. Also, in the relied upon embodiment of Fig 12, the correction is based on the wire feed speed)
Daniel Fig 12 discloses an embodiment in which weld feed speed is measured, and travel speed is adjusted by a correction factor. The embodiment of Fig 12 adjusts on the basis of weld feed speed rather than height.
On the other hand, Daniel Fig 11 shows an embodiment that adjusts based on CWTD, which is related to height. However, this embodiment does not explicitly disclose measuring the feed speed, nor acquiring a reference welding speed corresponding to the feed speed.
Sato (JP 2021023983) discloses “the welding speed and wire feeding speed are varied under several conditions to change the amount of welded material, and bead-on-plate welding and vertical lamination of several layers are performed. The height and width of each layer are measured under each condition and the results are then compiled into a database. Then, when stacking, the welding speed and deposition amount are selected to meet the desired height and width of the stack” (¶49). Thus, Sato is pertinent to the limitation “acquiring a reference welding speed that is a moving speed of the welding torch corresponding to the measured filler metal feed speed.” However, these values appear to already be optimized, thus it would not be obvious to “[correct] the reference welding speed with the welding speed correction value.” One applying the teaching of Sato would use the desired height to directly select the welding speed and wire feeding speed.
Claims 13 and 14 include corresponding limitations and are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (US 20210237186) teaches: “A tachometer 50 or other sensor may be provided for detecting the speed of the first wire feeder motor 46, the rollers 47, or any other associated component so as to provide an indication of the actual wire feed speed. Signals from the tachometer are fed back to the control circuitry 32, such as for continued or periodic monitoring, calibration, etc. In some examples, the system includes a wire spool motor for rotating the wire feeding device, which can be similarly adjusted to increase or decrease the amount of wire between wire feeder motors” (¶67).
Liu further teaches that a program “controls one or more of a wire feed speed or a travel speed” based on a welding-type which depends on the temperature. In other words, a determined temperature is used to select a welding-type program having a wire feed speed and a welding speed that correspond.
Rajagopal (US 20180117718) teaches “the weld system may include a wire feed speed sensor that is configured to sense a flow of the weld electrode material” (¶803). For example, “the rotation speed of the motor assembly (used to determine lead wire speed) can be measured by sensor 14492” (¶1269-¶1271).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 WFS = wire feed speed, see ¶84
2 CTWD = contact tip to work distance
Prosecution Insights