DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites "A fault-monitoring method for predicting, when a structure is formed by layering a plurality of weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal using a welding device, an occurrence of a welding fault based on history information on the formation of the weld beads by the welding device, the method comprising: a step of acquiring a shape profile of the existing weld bead; a step of extracting a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile; a step of identifying a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount; and a step of updating the shape profile when the welding device newly forms the weld bead and repeatedly executing the extraction of the feature amount and the identification of the fault candidate location". Therefore, it is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception recited? Yes. Each limitation, as recited in the claim, is a process that, under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. All recitation of structure is limited to conditioning when said method occurs or what is being observed, wherein the actual method steps are all performable within the mind. Thus the claim recites a mental process.
Each limitation as recited in claim, is a process that, under its broadest limitation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when viewed alone or in combination recites a plurality of mental steps in response to the occurrence of a welding process.
Step 2B: No.
Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
Similarly, claims 9-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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: “a shape profile acquisition unit” in claim 1, “a feature amount extraction unit” in claim 1, “a fault position identification unit” in claim 1, “a control unit” in claim 1, “a formation portion identification unit” in claim 5, “a fault size prediction unit” in claims 6 and 7, “a post-processing condition setting unit” in claim 12, and “a welding condition setting unit” in claims 13 and 14.
Regarding the term “a shape profile acquisition unit” in claim 1, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure that can acquire a shape profile of an existing weld bead will meet this limitation.
Regarding the term “a feature amount extraction unit” in claim 1, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure that extract a feature amount formed by a plurality of weld beads will meet this limitation.
Regarding the term “a fault position identification unit” in claim 1, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure which is configured to identify a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur will meet this limitation.
Regarding the term “a control unit” in claim 1, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of a processor (per para. 0029).
Regarding the term “a formation portion identification unit” in claim 5, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure which is configured to identify whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion continuous in a wall shape or a filling portion in a region surrounded by the wall portion will meet this limitation.
Regarding the term “a fault size prediction unit” in claims 6 and 7, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure which is configured to predict a fault size will meet this limitation.
Regarding the term “a post-processing condition setting unit” in claim 12, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure which is configured to set a condition for repairing the fault candidate location by machine working or remelting will meet this limitation.
Regarding the term “a welding condition setting unit” in claims 13 and 14, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure which is configured to set at least one of the welding conditions will meet this limitation.
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.
Claim 1, and the claims depending from this claim are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead” in claim 1. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically the broad terms “a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead”.
A similar rejection is made for each of the terms “a feature amount extraction unit configured to extract a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile” in claim 1, “a fault position identification unit configured to identify a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount” in claim 1, “a formation portion identification unit configured to identify whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion continuous in a wall shape or a filling portion in a region surrounded by the wall portion” in claim 5, “a fault size prediction unit configured to predict a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount” in claims 6 and 7, “a post-processing condition setting unit configured to set a condition for repairing the fault candidate location by machine working or remelting” in claim 12, “a welding condition setting unit configured to set at least one of welding conditions among a welding current, a welding voltage, a filler metal feeding speed, a travel speed, and a torch holding angle when the weld bead is formed at the fault candidate location” in claims 13 and 14.
Claims 2-7 and 11-15 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
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 and 11-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 includes the limitations “a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to acquire a shape profile of a weld bead. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 includes the limitations “a feature amount extraction unit configured to extract a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to extract a feature amount of a concave shape. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a feature amount extraction unit configured to extract a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 includes the limitations “a fault position identification unit configured to identify a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to identify a fault candidate location. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a fault position identification unit configured to identify a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 5 includes the limitations “a formation portion identification unit configured to identify whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion continuous in a wall shape or a filling portion in a region surrounded by the wall portion” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to identify whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a formation portion identification unit configured to identify whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion continuous in a wall shape or a filling portion in a region surrounded by the wall portion”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 6-7 includes the limitations “a fault size prediction unit configured to predict a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to predict a fault size. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a fault size prediction unit configured to predict a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 12 includes the limitations “a post-processing condition setting unit configured to set a condition for repairing the fault candidate location by machine working or remelting” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to set a condition for repairing a fault candidate location. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a post-processing condition setting unit configured to set a condition for repairing the fault candidate location by machine working or remelting”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 13-14 includes the limitations “a welding condition setting unit configured to set at least one of welding conditions among a welding current, a welding voltage, a filler metal feeding speed, a travel speed, and a torch holding angle when the weld bead is formed at the fault candidate location” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to set welding conditions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a welding condition setting unit configured to set at least one of welding conditions among a welding current, a welding voltage, a filler metal feeding speed, a travel speed, and a torch holding angle when the weld bead is formed at the fault candidate location.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
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;
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
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 (35U.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:
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
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 2-7 and 11-15 are rejected for dependence from one of the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1) teaches a fault-monitoring device that predicts (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 estimates whether or not a defect will occur), when a structure is formed by layering a plurality of weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal using a welding device (Paragraph 24, additive manufacturing system is a system including a three-dimensional printer of a directed energy deposition or laser metal deposition; Paragraph 31, material is metal; Paragraph 34, shaping unit heats the discharged material to form a bead; Paragraph 36, molten region solidifies and becomes a layer of aggregate of layered material), an occurrence of a welding fault based on history information on the formation of the weld beads by the welding device (Paragraph 67, reference database is used to estimate whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object from a measurement result of the layer by the measurement unit), the fault-monitoring device (Figure 3, additive manufacturing system 1) comprising:
a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead (Paragraph 54, measuring instrument 41 continuously measures the contour shape of the surface of the layer; Paragraph 34, molten region is a bead);
a feature amount extraction unit configured to extract a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 predicts whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object 3 on the basis of the measurement information 63 indicating the measurement result of the layer 3a of the shaped object 3; Paragraph 78, measurement information includes shape of the surface of the layer and groups of coordinates; Figure 6, at least a portion of the shape of layer includes being concave);
a fault position identification unit configured to identify a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount (Paragraphs 104-106, estimation results include information related to the coordinate and size of the defect H which is predicted to occur based on the estimation result of the occurrence prediction unit which uses measurement information to predict); and
a control unit configured to cause the shape profile acquisition unit to update the shape profile when the welding device newly forms the weld bead (Figure 8 Paragraph 121, in the case that additive manufacturing is not complete, the measurement unit 12 measures the shape of the surface of the layer 3a again which updates the profile) and to repeatedly execute the extraction of the feature amount by the feature amount extraction unit and the identification of the fault candidate location by the fault position identification unit (Paragraph 155, the measurement unit measure the shape of the layer after a layer is completed and repeats the entire analysis process).
Regarding claim 6, MORIMATSU teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a fault size prediction unit configured to predict a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount (Paragraph 99, the size of the defect H which will occur is estimated on the basis of the feature amount calculated by the CNN).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1) teaches a fault-monitoring method for predicting (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 estimates whether or not a defect will occur), when a structure is formed by layering a plurality of weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal using a welding device (Paragraph 24, additive manufacturing system is a system including a three-dimensional printer of a directed energy deposition or laser metal deposition; Paragraph 31, material is metal; Paragraph 34, shaping unit heats the discharged material to form a bead; Paragraph 36, molten region solidifies and becomes a layer of aggregate of layered material), an occurrence of a welding fault based on history information on the formation of the weld beads by the welding device (Paragraph 67, reference database is used to estimate whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object from a measurement result of the layer by the measurement unit), the method comprising:
a step of acquiring a shape profile of the existing weld bead (Paragraph 54, measuring instrument 41 continuously measures the contour shape of the surface of the layer; Paragraph 34, molten region is a bead);
a step of extracting a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 predicts whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object 3 on the basis of the measurement information 63 indicating the measurement result of the layer 3a of the shaped object 3; Paragraph 78, measurement information includes shape of the surface of the layer and groups of coordinates; Figure 6, at least a portion of the shape of layer includes being concave);
a step of identifying a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount (Paragraphs 104-106, estimation results include information related to the coordinate and size of the defect H which is predicted to occur based on the estimation result of the occurrence prediction unit which uses measurement information to predict); and
a step of updating the shape profile when the welding device newly forms the weld bead (Figure 8 Paragraph 121, in the case that additive manufacturing is not complete, the measurement unit 12 measures the shape of the surface of the layer 3a again which updates the profile) and repeatedly executing the extraction of the feature amount and the identification of the fault candidate location (Paragraph 155, the measurement unit measure the shape of the layer after a layer is completed and repeats the entire analysis process).
Regarding claim 9, MORIMATSU teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 8, further comprising:
a step of distinguishing whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion continuous in a wall shape (Paragraph 73, base 3b including alignment mark 3d; Paragraphs 88-90, measuring instrument can measure the alignment mark 3d when measuring the shape of the surface of the layer 3a such as to identify said point as a reference point of the coordinate in the sample measurement information 65) or a filling portion (layer 3a) in a region surrounded by the wall portion (Paragraph 54, additive manufacturing system 1 can obtain a three-dimensional shape of the surface of layer 3a or the base 3b by synthesizing a plurality of contour shapes obtained by the measuring instrument 41; Paragraph 54, measurement unit measures the shapes of the surfaces of layers 3a and thus the surfaces of layers 3a becomes an internal structure of the shaped object 3; Figure 14, under certain embodiments the base 3b surrounds the layer 3a) to obtain the feature amount only when the filling portion is formed (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 predicts whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object 3 on the basis of the measurement information 63 indicating the measurement result of the layer 3a of the shaped object 3; Paragraph 54, measurement unit 12 measures the shapes of the surfaces of the layers 3a; layer 3a can only be measured when a layer 3a is at least partially formed).
Regarding claim 10, MORIMATSU teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 8, further comprising:
a step of predicting a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount (Paragraph 99, the size of the defect H which will occur is estimated on the basis of the feature amount calculated by the CNN).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1) teaches a welding assistance system comprising:
the fault-monitoring device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above);
an instruction information generation device configured to generate instruction information for reducing the welding fault at the identified fault candidate location (Paragraphs 106-107, repair device 71 repairs the layer 3a on the basis of the estimation result of the estimation unit 56 by being controlled by the shaping control unit 52; Paragraphs 79-80, coordinate on the surface of the layer is obtained and used to coordinate where the defect is estimated to occur).
Regarding claim 12, MORIMATSU teaches the welding assistance system according to claim 11, wherein:
the instruction information generation device includes a post-processing condition setting unit configured to set a condition for repairing the fault candidate location (Paragraphs 106-107, repair device 71 repairs the layer 3a on the basis of the estimation result of the estimation unit 56 by being controlled by the shaping control unit 52; Paragraph 185, repair occurs above a position where the defect is estimated to occur) by machine working or remelting (Paragraph 108, repair device 71 includes a cutting unit 72).
Regarding claim 15, MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1) teaches a welding system comprising:
the welding assistance system according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above);
the welding device configured to form the weld bead (Paragraph 34, shaping unit 11 heats the base 3b and the discharged material M with the energy ray E to form a molten bead 3c);
a bead processing device configured to process a fault candidate location of the weld bead of a formed structure (Paragraphs 106-107, repair device 71 repairs the layer 3a on the basis of the estimation result of the estimation unit 56 by being controlled by the shaping control unit 52; Paragraph 185, repair occurs above a position where the defect is estimated to occur).
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 and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASAKI (WO 2019098006 A1) in view of MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1).
Regarding claim 1, YAMASAKI (WO 2019098006 A1) teaches device that predicts, when a structure is formed by layering a plurality of weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal using a welding device (Paragraph 57, forming a weld bead layer by arranging weld beads by melting and solidifying filler material adjacent to one another and repeatedly stacking the next welding bead layer on the formed welding bead layer), the device comprising:
a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead (Paragraph 32, shape detection sensor 23 detects the shape of the area around the position where the next welding bead will be formed; Paragraph 33, control unit recognizes the shape of a recess formed by already formed welding beads);
a feature amount extraction unit configured to extract a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile (Paragraph 46, control unit 37 recognizes the shape of the welding bead around the target position where the welding bead will be formed based on the generated layered model; Figure 6 Paragraph 46, shape of recess being formed by the already formed welding beads is recognized; Figure 6 Paragraph 6, shape of recess can be seen as concave);
a control unit configured to cause the shape profile acquisition unit to update the shape profile when the welding device newly forms the weld bead (Paragraph 50, the shape of the recess to be formed is estimated and the size of the welding beads is changed so that the estimated recess shapes are filled with welding beads; Paragraph 55, bead size and shape are detected by detecting the surrounding the recess) and to repeatedly execute the extraction of the feature amount by the feature amount extraction unit and the identification of the fault candidate location by the fault position identification unit (Paragraph 42, steps S14 to S18 are repeated until the entire track is completed; Paragraphs 29-33, the steps S14 and S18 include forming a welding bead/detecting the shape of a recess between adjacent pairs of welding beads, and adjusting the bead size of the new welding bead and position of the torch as needed to fill the recess)
YAMASAKI fails to teach:
a fault position identification unit configured to identify a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount; and
MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1) teaches a fault-monitoring device that predicts (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 estimates whether or not a defect will occur), when a structure is formed by layering a plurality of weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal using a welding device (Paragraph 24, additive manufacturing system is a system including a three-dimensional printer of a directed energy deposition or laser metal deposition; Paragraph 31, material is metal; Paragraph 34, shaping unit heats the discharged material to form a bead; Paragraph 36, molten region solidifies and becomes a layer of aggregate of layered material), an occurrence of a welding fault based on history information on the formation of the weld beads by the welding device (Paragraph 67, reference database is used to estimate whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object from a measurement result of the layer by the measurement unit), the fault-monitoring device (Figure 3, additive manufacturing system 1) comprising:
a shape profile acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape profile of the existing weld bead (Paragraph 54, measuring instrument 41 continuously measures the contour shape of the surface of the layer; Paragraph 34, molten region is a bead);
a feature amount extraction unit configured to extract a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 predicts whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object 3 on the basis of the measurement information 63 indicating the measurement result of the layer 3a of the shaped object 3; Paragraph 78, measurement information includes shape of the surface of the layer and groups of coordinates; Figure 6, shape of layer includes being concave);
a fault position identification unit configured to identify a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount (Paragraphs 104-106, estimation results include information related to the coordinate and size of the defect H which is predicted to occur based on the estimation result of the occurrence prediction unit which uses measurement information to predict); and
a control unit configured to cause the shape profile acquisition unit to update the shape profile when the welding device newly forms the weld bead and to repeatedly execute the extraction of the feature amount by the feature amount extraction unit and the identification of the fault candidate location by the fault position identification unit (Figure 8 Paragraph 121, in the case that additive manufacturing is not complete, the measurement unit 12 measures the shape of the surface of the layer 3a; Paragraph 155, the measurement unit measure the shape of the layer after a layer is completed and repeats the entire analysis process).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YAMASAKI with MORIMATSU and have an estimation unit predict whether a defect will occur based on shape measurements of the previous layer and have a repair device repair. This would have been done to allow the system to repair the layer before the next layer is applied (MORIMATSU Paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 5, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 1.
MORIMATSU further teaches:
a formation portion identification unit configured to identify whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion continuous in a wall shape (Paragraph 73, base 3b including alignment mark 3d; Paragraphs 88-90, measuring instrument can measure the alignment mark 3d when measuring the shape of the surface of the layer 3a such as to identify said point as a reference point of the coordinate in the sample measurement information 65) or a filling portion (layer 3a) in a region surrounded by the wall portion (Paragraph 54, additive manufacturing system 1 can obtain a three-dimensional shape of the surface of layer 3a or the base 3b by synthesizing a plurality of contour shapes obtained by the measuring instrument 41; Paragraph 54, measurement unit measures the shapes of the surfaces of layers 3a and thus the surfaces of layers 3a becomes an internal structure of the shaped object 3; Figure 14, under certain embodiments the base 3b surrounds the layer 3a).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 1.
MORIMATSU further teaches:
a fault size prediction unit configured to predict a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount (Paragraph 99, the size of the defect H which will occur is estimated on the basis of the feature amount calculated by the CNN).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 6.
MORIMATSU further teaches:
a fault size prediction unit configured to predict a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount (Paragraph 99, the size of the defect H which will occur is estimated on the basis of the feature amount calculated by the CNN).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, YAMASAKI (WO 2019098006 A1) teaches a monitoring method for predicting, when a structure is formed by layering a plurality of weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal using a welding device (Paragraph 57, forming a weld bead layer by arranging weld beads by melting and solidifying filler material adjacent to one another and repeatedly stacking the next welding bead layer on the formed welding bead layer), the method comprising:
a step of acquiring a shape profile of the existing weld bead (Paragraph 32, shape detection sensor 23 detects the shape of the area around the position where the next welding bead will be formed; Paragraph 33, control unit recognizes the shape of a recess formed by already formed welding beads);
a step of extracting a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile (Paragraph 46, control unit 37 recognizes the shape of the welding bead around the target position where the welding bead will be formed based on the generated layered model; Figure 6 Paragraph 46, shape of recess being formed by the already formed welding beads is recognized; Figure 6 Paragraph 6, shape of recess can be seen as concave);
a step of updating the shape profile when the welding device newly forms the weld bead (Paragraph 50, the shape of the recess to be formed is estimated and the size of the welding beads is changed so that the estimated recess shapes are filled with welding beads; Paragraph 55, bead size and shape are detected by detecting the surrounding the recess) and repeatedly executing the extraction of the feature amount and the identification of the fault candidate location (Paragraph 42, steps S14 to S18 are repeated until the entire track is completed; Paragraphs 29-33, the steps S14 and S18 include forming a welding bead/detecting the shape of a recess between adjacent pairs of welding beads, and adjusting the bead size of the new welding bead and position of the torch as needed to fill the recess).
YAMASAKI fails to teach:
a step of identifying a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount; and
MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1) teaches a fault-monitoring method for predicting (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 estimates whether or not a defect will occur), when a structure is formed by layering a plurality of weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal using a welding device (Paragraph 24, additive manufacturing system is a system including a three-dimensional printer of a directed energy deposition or laser metal deposition; Paragraph 31, material is metal; Paragraph 34, shaping unit heats the discharged material to form a bead; Paragraph 36, molten region solidifies and becomes a layer of aggregate of layered material), an occurrence of a welding fault based on history information on the formation of the weld beads by the welding device (Paragraph 67, reference database is used to estimate whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object from a measurement result of the layer by the measurement unit), the method comprising:
a step of acquiring a shape profile of the existing weld bead (Paragraph 54, measuring instrument 41 continuously measures the contour shape of the surface of the layer; Paragraph 34, molten region is a bead);
a step of extracting a feature amount of a concave shape formed by the plurality of existing weld beads included in the shape profile (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 predicts whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object 3 on the basis of the measurement information 63 indicating the measurement result of the layer 3a of the shaped object 3; Paragraph 78, measurement information includes shape of the surface of the layer and groups of coordinates; Figure 6, shape of layer includes being concave);
a step of identifying a fault candidate location where the welding fault is expected to occur according to the extracted feature amount (Paragraphs 104-106, estimation results include information related to the coordinate and size of the defect H which is predicted to occur based on the estimation result of the occurrence prediction unit which uses measurement information to predict); and
a step of updating the shape profile when the welding device newly forms the weld bead and repeatedly executing the extraction of the feature amount and the identification of the fault candidate location (Figure 8 Paragraph 121, in the case that additive manufacturing is not complete, the measurement unit 12 measures the shape of the surface of the layer 3a; Paragraph 155, the measurement unit measure the shape of the layer after a layer is completed and repeats the entire analysis process).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YAMASAKI with MORIMATSU and have an estimation unit predict whether a defect will occur based on shape measurements of the previous layer and have a repair device repair. This would have been done to allow the system to repair the layer before the next layer is applied (MORIMATSU Paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 9, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 8.
MORIMATSU further teaches:
a step of distinguishing whether the existing weld bead is a wall portion continuous in a wall shape (Paragraph 73, base 3b including alignment mark 3d; Paragraphs 88-90, measuring instrument can measure the alignment mark 3d when measuring the shape of the surface of the layer 3a such as to identify said point as a reference point of the coordinate in the sample measurement information 65) or a filling portion (layer 3a) in a region surrounded by the wall portion (Paragraph 54, additive manufacturing system 1 can obtain a three-dimensional shape of the surface of layer 3a or the base 3b by synthesizing a plurality of contour shapes obtained by the measuring instrument 41; Paragraph 54, measurement unit measures the shapes of the surfaces of layers 3a and thus the surfaces of layers 3a becomes an internal structure of the shaped object 3; Figure 14, under certain embodiments the base 3b surrounds the layer 3a) to obtain the feature amount only when the filling portion is formed (Paragraph 100, estimation unit 56 predicts whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object 3 on the basis of the measurement information 63 indicating the measurement result of the layer 3a of the shaped object 3; Paragraph 54, measurement unit 12 measures the shapes of the surfaces of the layers 3a; layer 3a can only be measured when a layer 3a is at least partially formed).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 8.
MORIMATSU further teaches:
a step of predicting a fault size from position information on the fault candidate location or a size of the feature amount (Paragraph 99, the size of the defect H which will occur is estimated on the basis of the feature amount calculated by the CNN).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, YAMASAKI (WO 2019098006 A1) as modified teaches a welding assistance system comprising:
the fault-monitoring device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above);
an instruction information generation device configured to generate instruction information for reducing the welding fault at the identified fault candidate location (Paragraph 25, the size of the welding bead is changed such as to prevent defects from occurring; Paragraph 54, making the torch axis direction the bisector of the angle between the tangents such that interference with the torch can be prevented while efficiently forming the bead)
MORIMATSU further teaches:
an instruction information generation device configured to generate instruction information for reducing the welding fault at the identified fault candidate location (Paragraphs 106-107, repair device 71 repairs the layer 3a on the basis of the estimation result of the estimation unit 56 by being controlled by the shaping control unit 52; Paragraphs 79-80, coordinate on the surface of the layer is obtained and used to coordinate where the defect is estimated to occur).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the welding assistance system according to claim 11.
MORIMATSU further teaches:
the instruction information generation device includes a post-processing condition setting unit configured to set a condition for repairing the fault candidate location (Paragraphs 106-107, repair device 71 repairs the layer 3a on the basis of the estimation result of the estimation unit 56 by being controlled by the shaping control unit 52; Paragraph 185, repair occurs above a position where the defect is estimated to occur) by machine working or remelting (Paragraph 108, repair device 71 includes a cutting unit 72).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the welding assistance system according to claim 11, wherein:
the instruction information generation device includes a welding condition setting unit configured to set at least one of welding conditions among a welding current, a welding voltage (voltage; Paragraph 40, voltage is changed so that the welding bead is formed with the estimated bead size), a filler metal feeding speed (feeding speed; Paragraph 40, supply speed of the filler material is changed so that the welding bead is formed with the estimated bead size), a travel speed (travel speed; Paragraph 40, movement speed of the torch is changed so that the welding bead is formed with the estimated bead size), and a torch holding angle when the weld bead is formed at the fault candidate location (Paragraph 25, the size of the welding bead is changed such as to prevent defects from occurring; Paragraph 54, making the torch axis direction the bisector of the angle between the tangents such that interference with the torch can be prevented while efficiently forming the bead).
Regarding claim 14, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the welding assistance system according to claim 12, wherein:
the instruction information generation device includes a welding condition setting unit configured to set at least one of welding conditions among a welding current, a welding voltage (voltage; Paragraph 40, voltage is changed so that the welding bead is formed with the estimated bead size), a filler metal feeding speed (feeding speed; Paragraph 40, supply speed of the filler material is changed so that the welding bead is formed with the estimated bead size), a travel speed (travel speed; Paragraph 40, movement speed of the torch is changed so that the welding bead is formed with the estimated bead size), and a torch holding angle when the weld bead is formed at the fault candidate location (Paragraph 25, the size of the welding bead is changed such as to prevent defects from occurring; Paragraph 54, making the torch axis direction the bisector of the angle between the tangents such that interference with the torch can be prevented while efficiently forming the bead).
Regarding claim 15, YAMASAKI (WO 2019098006 A1) as modified teaches a welding system comprising:
the welding assistance system according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above);
the welding device configured to form the weld bead (Paragraph 15, torch 17 is used to form a welding bead);
MORIMATSU further teaches:
a bead processing device configured to process a fault candidate location of the weld bead of a formed structure (Paragraphs 106-107, repair device 71 repairs the layer 3a on the basis of the estimation result of the estimation unit 56 by being controlled by the shaping control unit 52; Paragraph 185, repair occurs above a position where the defect is estimated to occur).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASAKI (WO 2019098006 A1) in view of MORIMATSU (US 20220324175 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HIRANO (JP 2001105138 A).
Regarding claim 2, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein
the feature amount includes at least one of a root angle that is a corner on a weld bead side among intersection angles between a tangent line at a position where the existing weld bead is in contact with a base surface of the weld bead and the base surface in a cross section orthogonal to a bead formation direction of the weld bead (root angle; Figure 6 Paragraph 35, boundary between the outer surface of the welding bead 54 and the outer surface of the welding bead 53B is defined as Pc wherein an angle between the tangent lines L1 and L2; Paragraph 36, orientation of the torch axis is adjusted to be in the same direction as N which is the angle bisector of said angle), and a bead formation region width of a region where the weld bead is to be newly formed.
While the Office does not concede the fact, the applicant may argue that YAMASAKI fails to explicitly teach that the angle is used to identify a fault. However, Paragraph 100 of MORIMATSU further teach that the estimation unit 56 predicts whether or not a defect will occur inside the shaped object 3 on the basis of the measurement information wherein said estimation includes the coordinate of the defect. Furthermore, HIRANO (JP 2001105138 A) teaches automatic welding equipment wherein the root angles at the corner of the previously laminated bead are measured (HIRANO Figure 9a and Paragraph 73) and used to determine whether the measured shape of the laminated bead falls outside a preset threshold range and thus indicates a bead shape anomaly (HIRANO Paragraph 79), which is likely to cause welding defects (HIRANO Paragraph 81). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YAMASAKI with HIRANO and have the root angles of the laminated beads be measured and used for defect determination. This would have been done to provide further verification to predict abnormalities in laminated bead shape, which is likely to cause welding defects (HIRANO Paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 3, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 1.
YAMASAKI as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the feature amount includes at least one of a bead interval between bead top portions, a valley depth from the bead top portion to a valley bottom, and a bottom portion interval between the weld beads at the valley bottom, of a pair of existing weld beads arranged adjacent to each other to form a valley portion in a cross section orthogonal to a bead formation direction of the weld bead.
HIRANO (JP 2001105138 A) teaches automatic welding equipment, wherein:
the feature amount includes at least one of a bead interval between bead top portions, a valley depth from the bead top portion to a valley bottom (valley depth; Figure 9b Paragraph 73, difference in height between the apex bt of the laminated bead and the deeper of the two deepest points on the left and right sides of the laminated bead is measured as the convex bead height; Paragraph 79, said information is used to determine whether abnormalities in the convex bead shape are detected), and a bottom portion interval between the weld beads at the valley bottom, of a pair of existing weld beads arranged adjacent to each other to form a valley portion in a cross section orthogonal to a bead formation direction of the weld bead.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YAMASAKI with HIRANO and have the feature amount include a valley depth. This would have been done to allow the system to detect abnormalities in the bead shape which are highly likely to cause defects (HIRANO Paragraphs 84-85).
Regarding claim 4, YAMASAKI as modified teaches the fault-monitoring device according to claim 3, wherein
the feature amount includes a cross-sectional area of the concave shape calculated using at least one of the feature amounts (Paragraph 55, estimating the bead size of the new welding bead that fills the recess based on detecting the shape of the area surrounding the recess using the shape detection sensor; Paragraph 40, control unit 37 estimates the welding conditions using predetermined tables and calculation formulas; estimating the width of a bead that fills the recess also estimates the cross-sectional area of the concave recess since the bead is intended to fill said recess).
HIRANO further teaches:
the feature amount includes a cross-sectional area of the concave shape calculated using at least one of the feature amounts (Figure 9f Paragraph 77, area enclosed by the straight line connecting the deepest points on the left and right size of the laminated bead and the curve of the bead portion is measured as the cross sectional area; Paragraph 79, said information is used to determine whether abnormalities in the convex bead shape are detected; Figure 3b Paragraphs 10 and 27, groove widths Wk and Wb are also measured which measures a concave cross sectional area formed by the welding work 23 and the bead seen at the bottom of figure 3b).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YAMASAKI with HIRANO and have the feature amount include a concave cross-sectional area. This would have been done to allow the system to detect abnormalities in the bead shape which are highly likely to cause defects (HIRANO Paragraphs 84-85).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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 at (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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights