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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A left vertical axis 415” should be corrected to --A right vertical axis 415-- [PG Pub: 0098].
“a left vertical axis 704” should be corrected to --a right vertical axis 704-- [PG Pub: 0121].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2:
“at least two of fluctuation trends including an increase, a decrease, and no change are indicated with a sign or a figure for fluctuation trends, in terms of time or position, of the at least two measurement items displayed on the graph.”
should be corrected to
“at least two fluctuation trends, including an increase, a decrease, and no change are indicated with a sign or a figure
wherein the at least two fluctuation trends are fluctuations, in terms of time or position, of the at least two measurement items displayed on the graph.”’
Regarding claim 4, “the fluctuation trends of the measurement items” should be corrected to “the at least two fluctuation trends”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 17, the deposition-related information is recited to be at least one of deposition setting information, deposition state information, production condition information, correction information, or deposition phenomenon information. However, the written description does not define or explicitly state what types of information may fall into one of these categories. Thus, the examiner is interpreting this limitation (based on the provided definitions of the analogous information types for welding-related information) as follows:
Deposition setting information: any information that has been pre-determined by an operator or control system regarding a deposition-type additive manufacturing machine
Deposition state information: any information regarding output by the machine and/or operator during a deposition-type additive manufacturing process
Product condition information: any information regarding the state of the product being manufactured by a deposition-type additive manufacturing machine
Correction information: any information regarding corrective action taken by an operator and/or machine during a deposition-type additive manufacturing process
Deposition phenomenon information: any information regarding frequency or number of events (either intended or unintended) that occur during a deposition-type additive manufacturing process
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15-19, the limitation “wherein each of the at least two measurement items is displayed on the graph with a color or a line type of the measurement item changed” is indefinite, as it is unclear how the measurement item is being “changed.” From the written description and drawings, it appears that this “change” refers to the option to select a measurement item to be displayed using the checkboxes (for example checkboxes 402 in Fig. 4A). However, it is unclear how the line type or color is associated with checking or unchecking these boxes, and rather, it seems that each line is given its own unique color or type within the plot to identify and distinguish between lines, regardless of which measurement items are selected. Therefore, it is suggested that the applicant correct the language in this claim to clarify the use of line color and type. A suggested correction to the above limitation is --wherein each of the at least two measurement items is displayed on the graph with a color or a line type that is unique to each of the at least two measurement items--. Please note that this correction includes a further correction regarding antecedent basis issues of the at least two measurement item; see below.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-19, claims 1 and 15-19 introduce the limitation “at least two of a plurality of measurement items” which is then referenced again both within these claims and in each of the dependent claims (except for claim 3). However, references made to this limitation are indefinite, as the “at least two of a plurality of measurement items” is referred to by several different phrases, each of which lack antecedent basis. Thus, the following corrections are suggested:
Claims 1 and 15-19: “at least two of a plurality of measurement items” should be corrected to “at least two measurement items selected from a plurality of measurement items”
Claims 1 and 15-19: “the measurement item” should be corrected to --each of the at least two measurement items-- (one instance in each claim).
Claims 1 and 15-19: “the measurement items” should be corrected to --the at least two measurement items-- (two instances in each claim).
Claims 4, 5, and 6: “the measurement items” should be corrected to --the at least two measurement items--
Claims 7 and 9-14: “a measurement item” should be corrected to --one of the at least two measurement items--.
Remaining references to the at least two measurement items or each of the at least two measurement items would not have antecedent basis issues if the correction suggested in (a) is implemented.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites the limitation “the display screen” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. More specifically, claim 1 introduces three display screens: “a display screen for the graph,” “a display screen for a moving image,” and “a display screen for history information.” It is unclear which display screen is being referred to in claim 14, rendering this claim indefinite. Because claim 14 is discussing the welding phenomenon information, which is included in the at least two measurement items, this limitation is being interpreted as “the display screen for the graph” as the at least two measurement items are to be displayed on the graph, as stated in claim 1. However, applicant should clarify, using the above language, which display screen this information is intended to be displayed upon.
Regarding claim 3, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 9 disclosed by Lamers, annotated to show elements of interest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 2014/0278242 A1) in view of Edwards (US 9015173 B2) and Becker (US 10665128 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lamers discloses a method for displaying welding-related information (“WELDING RESOURCE PERFORMEANCE COMPARISON SYSTEM AND METHOD” [title], see Annotated Figure 1), the method comprising:
a display step of displaying at least two of a plurality of measurement items (goal report page 78 includes a plot of trace data showing voltage, current, and wire feed speed [Figs. 9 and 11]) included in the welding-related information on a same graph (voltage, current, and wire feed speed are all plotted on the same trace data plot [Figs. 9 and 11]) while associating the at least two measurement items with at least a time series or positional information (trace data is plotted as a function of time [Figs. 9 and 11]), and
wherein the welding-related information includes at least welding setting information (optional limitation), welding state information (the voltage, current, and wire feed speed [Figs. 9 and 11] are all welding state information as defined in the instant application [PG Pub: 0088]), production condition information (optional limitation), correction information (optional limitation), or welding phenomenon information (optional limitation).
Lamers does not expressly disclose that each of the at least two measurement items is displayed on the graph with a color or a line type of the measurement item changed.
Edwards discloses a monitoring system for welding manufacturing [title, abstract]. The system includes a display of welding parameters for a welding operation, including at least two measurement items selected from welding-related information plotted on the same graph with respect to time (Figs. 7C-7I show the current and resistance of a welding operation as a function of time).
Further, Edwards teaches that each of the at least two measurement items is displayed on the graph with a color or a line type of the measurement item changed (each of the lines on Figs. 7C-7I have a different line type).
Lamers discloses a method for displaying welding-related information wherein at least two measurement items are plotted on the same graph with respect to time, as discussed above. However, Lamers does not disclose that the lines used to plot this information are provided a different line type or color for each of the at least two measurement items. Edwards teaches different line types to distinguish displayed measurement items from one another. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the welding display method disclosed by Lamers to include the distinguishing line types taught by Edwards before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because currently, the only way to distinguish curves from one another in the display disclosed by Lamers is by a “mouse over” to view particular points (element 130 highlighted in Lamers: Fig. 9), whereas using different line types as taught by Edwards allows a user to distinguish between lines across the entire curve without having to use mouse. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectations of success with this modification, as both references deal with welding information display methods.
Lamers does not expressly disclose a display screen for the graph and at least a display screen for a moving image of welding associated with the measurement items displayed on the graph or a display screen for history information regarding errors detected with respect to the measurement items are switchable. However, Lamers discloses a multiplicity of switchable pages, each with tabs showing various data corresponding to welds (Figs. 6-13 show pages for DASHBOARD, REPORTS, and CONFIGURATION, each with their own set of switchable tabs; see Annotated Figure 1).
Becker discloses a system and method of monitoring welding information [title, abstract]. The system includes a display of measurement items selected from welding-related information (welding data 327 is displayed on a screen for a user [Fig. 20]). The display additionally includes an option for a video replay of a welding operation captured during the operation using a camera (video replay 342 is included as on option for the screen illustrating welding data [Fig. 20, col. 29, lines 37-38]; sensing device(s) 16 may include a camera to capture a weld video [Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 49-53]).
Lamers discloses a method for displaying welding-related information wherein the display includes multiple switchable pages with tabs to allow users to view various types of data corresponding to welding operations. Lamers does not disclose a moving image of a weld associated with the data on the displayed graph in any of the switchable pages or tabs. Becker teaches a video replay of a weld that corresponds to displayed welding data in a welding-information display, using video captured by a camera on the welding system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the welding-information display disclosed by Lamers to include the video replay option taught by Beckers before the filing date of the claimed invention. Specifically, one would have added a video capture step to the method disclosed by Lamers, using a camera, as disclosed by Becker. Then, the video captured of the weld would be available to play on one of the tabs disclosed by Lamers in the display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it allows for a direct comparison of the measured parameters to the visual of the welding operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both references deal with methods for displaying arc welding-related information and Becker teaches both the video replay and the camera set-up needed for capturing the video replay.
Thus, Lamers in view of Becker discloses a display screen for the graph (Lamers: Fig. 9) and at least a display screen for a moving image of welding associated with the measurement items displayed on the graph (Becker: video replay 342 [Fig. 20]) or a display screen for history information regarding errors detected with respect to the measurement items (optional limitation) are switchable (Lamers: pages shown in Figs. 6-13 include multiple tabs; see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker, with respect to the combination method detailed regarding claim 1, does not expressly disclose that values of the measurement items and at least past data or reference data regarding the measurement items are displayed while being associated with each other.
Becker discloses a display showing data related to parameters of the welding operation (work angle 328, travel angle 330, contact tip to workpiece distance (CTWD) 332, welding torch travel speed 334, and welding torch aim 336 [Figs. 20 and 21, column 29, lines 23-27]) plotted on a graph alongside target and/or threshold values of those parameters (target values of each of these parameters can be seen in Figs. 20 and 21 and Annotated Figure 2). It should be noted that while Figs. 20 and 21 only point to a target value of the data, figures illustrating other screen embodiments, such as Fig. 62, label the threshold values as upper and lower limits. However, the lines labeled with a target value (dashed lines in centers of plots) and/or threshold values (solid lines at tops and bottoms of plots) are present in all plots (i.e., Figs. 20, 21, and 62).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Fig. 21 disclosed by Becker, annotated to show a disclosed determination process.
Thus, Becker teaches that the data related to parameters of the welding operation and at least past data (optional limitation) or reference data (target and/or threshold values) regarding the measurement items are displayed while being associated with each other (Figs. 20 and 21 and Annotated Figure 2 show the display of the target and/or threshold values on the same plots as the data related to parameters of the welding operations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the teaching of Becker for the display of reference data on the same plot as data related to parameters of the welding operation to the display method disclosed by Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker (hereinafter referred to as the combination method). Specifically, target values and/or thresholds for each of the measurement items disclosed by the combination (i.e., voltage, current, and wire feed speed) may be provided on the same plot, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as it allows for identification of where an issue in the welding operation has occurred, such as within the discontinuity analysis taught by Becker (see rejection for claim 6 below for further detail). Briefly, a user can visually inspect the plot to locate where parameters have deviated from their target and/or threshold values (Becker: [col. 32, lines 57-66]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both methods deal with displaying data sets related to a welding operation. Further, Lamers discloses a step for setting target values in the user interface (Lamers: goal editing page 96 [Fig. 7, 0035]), which indicates that this data is available and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of plotting the data that is already preset in the system disclosed by Lamers.
Regarding claim 6, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker, with respect to the combination method detailed regarding claim 1, does not expressly disclose that values of the measurement items and results of a determination process performed on a basis of past data, reference data, or setting values of the measurement items are displayed while being associated with each other.
In addition to the display of target and/or threshold values for welding parameters detailed regarding claim 5, Becker teaches that the data related to parameters of the welding operation and results of a determination process (discontinuity analysis 348 [Fig. 21, col. 32, line 58]) performed on a basis of past data (optional limitation), reference data (target and/or threshold values; see Annotated Figure 2), or setting values (optional limitation) of the measurement items are displayed while being associated with each other (results of the discontinuity analysis 348 (specifically times wherein an issue has occurred) are displayed with the plots, aligned with the timeframes where the issues took place [Fig. 21]; see Annotated Figure 2; the discontinuity analysis highlights points in time where the operation “does not meet a predetermined quality threshold” [col. 32, lines 62-63]).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker, using the teaching of Becker to include display of the target and/or threshold values on the same plots with the measurement items, as detailed regarding the rejection of claim 5 above. See claim 5 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for further detail. This will hereinafter be referred to as the combination method.
Second, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination method to include and display a discontinuity analysis, as taught by Becker. Specifically, using the target and/or threshold values as reference data, one would utilize the method of the discontinuity analysis disclosed by Becker to identify points in time wherein the measurement items have deviated from the reference data. These regions can then be displayed in a graph such as that disclosed by Becker (Becker: listing 350 [Fig. 21, col. 32, line 59]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because, according to Becker, “[w]ith this information a welding operator may be able to quickly analyze the quality of a welding operation” [col. 33, lines 7-8]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both methods deal with a graphical user interface that displays multiple forms of welding-related data to operators.
Regarding claim 8, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker, with respect to the combination method detailed regarding claim 1 (hereinafter referred to as the combination method), does not expressly disclose that the at least two measurement items are selected from at least two of the welding setting information, the welding state information, the production condition information, the correction information, and the welding phenomenon information included in the welding-related information. Rather the voltage, current, and wire feed speed displayed in Figs. 9 and 11 are each related to welding state information.
Edwards discloses both a “SETVALUE” and an “ACTUAL” value for current in a display intended to assist identification of welding problems (Fig. 7C). Thus, Edwards discloses that the at least two measurement items are selected from at least two of the welding setting information (current “SETVALUE” of Fig. 7C), the welding state information (current “ACTUAL” value of Fig. 7C), the production condition information (optional limitation), the correction information (optional limitation), and the welding phenomenon information (optional limitation) included in the welding-related information.
In the combination method, Lamers discloses a display that includes measurement items that are related only to the welding state information, while Edwards teaches a display including measurement items from both welding setting information and welding state information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination method by adding welding setting information to the graph showing welding state information as taught by Edwards before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because plotting both welding state and welding setting information on the same graph allows a user to identify points in the welding operation wherein the state values deviate from the setting values, indicating a welding error has occurred. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification, as both systems deal with displaying of welding parameters during a weld operation and moreover, Lamers discloses that the welding parameters are set via an operator interface (interface 42 [Fig. 4, 0027]), which would be capable of communicating with the display and adding said parameters to the graphs.
Regarding claim 9, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker, with respect to the combination method detailed regarding claim 1 (hereinafter referred to as the combination method), does not expressly disclose that a measurement item relating to the welding setting information includes a setting value of at least welding current, arc voltage, feed speed, welding speed, a shield gas flow rate, or shield gas pressure.
Edwards discloses that a measurement item relating to the welding setting information includes a setting value of at least welding current (current “SETVALUE” of Fig. 7C), arc voltage (optional limitation), feed speed (optional limitation), welding speed (optional limitation), a shield gas flow rate (optional limitation), or shield gas pressure (optional limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination method by adding welding setting information as taught by Edwards before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Please see the above rejection of claim 9 regarding this modification for further detail.
Regarding claim 10, Lamers discloses that a measurement item relating to the welding state information includes a detected value of at least welding current (“AMPS” in Figs. 9 and 11), arc voltage (“Volts in Figs. 9 and 11), feed speed (“WIRE SPEED” in Figs. 9 and 11), welding speed (optional limitation), a shield gas flow rate (optional limitation), or shield gas pressure (optional limitation).
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus of claim 15 substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Lamers discloses a welding system (welding systems 12 and 14 are grouped with support equipment 16 into one group 18 [Fig. 1, 0020]) comprising:
a welding apparatus (welding systems 12 and 14 are disclosed to be either arc welding systems or MIG welding systems [0026-0027, Fig. 4 illustrates a MIG welding system as an example]);
a sensor (support equipment 16 may be provided with sensors [Fig. 1, 0021]);
a measurement apparatus that measures welding-related information using a value detected by the sensor (“certain welding systems and support equipment will be provided with sensors, control circuitry, feedback circuits, and so forth that allow for collection of welding parameter data” [0021]); and
a display apparatus that displays the welding-related information (“the operator interface may comprise a conventional computer workstation, a handheld device, a tablet computer, or any other suitable interface” [0023]).
The remainder of claim 16 substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Lamers discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of claim 1. Specifically, Lamer discloses that at least one computer processor carries out the method, populating a viewable page [0005].
The remainder of claim 18 encompasses the entirety of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the display screen of claim 19 substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
PNG
media_image3.png
444
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3. Fig. 3C disclosed by Harper, annotated to show figure used to illustrate fluctuation.
Claims 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 2014/0278242 A1) in view of Edwards (US 9015173 B2) and Becker (US 10665128 B2), and in further view of Harper (US 2011/0193704 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker (hereinafter referred to as the combination) does not expressly disclose that at least two of fluctuation trends including an increase, a decrease, and no change are indicated with a sign or a figure for fluctuation trends, in terms of time or position, of the at least two measurement items displayed on the graph.
Harper discloses a display for a medical device [title, abstract, Figs. 3A-3C]. This display plots line graphs of health-related measurements, wherein the data is received from sensors and able to be viewed by a user (home screen 300 displays graph 305 which shows data plotted from a sensor 101 [Figs. 1 and 3, 0085]). While this display is directed toward a medical application, it is analogous to the present application as it relates to the field of information/data display and communication.
Harper teaches a display for a fluctuation trend including an increase, a decrease, and no change which is indicated with an arrow to illustrate fluctuation trends in terms of time of a measurement, which displayed on a line graph on the same interface as the arrow (see Annotated Figure 3). The arrow is present on the display (trend information icon 324 [Fig. 3, 0091]), adjacent to the graph, its direction changes with respect to an increase, decrease, or no change in the measurement (when trend information icon 324 is horizontal, measurements are stable or there is only gradual change in the measurement; when trend information icon is pointing diagonally or straight downward, there is a decrease in the measurement; when the trend information icon is pointing diagonally or straight upward, there is an increase in the measurement [0099]), and its color changes with respect to how rapidly the measurement is increasing or decreasing (“the trend information icon 324 is color coded based on a rate of change” [0099]; green means stable or only gradual change, while red may mean rapid change [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied to teaching of Harper for a fluctuation trend arrow indicator on a data display to modify the combination method. Specifically, an arrow indicating trends in the data for each of the lines in the combination method (i.e., voltage, current, and wire feed speed, as disclosed by Lamers; see claim 1) could be added to the display. The trend arrow taught by Harper is dependent on a rate of change of data displayed the line graph. Because the data in the display of the combination method is already in the form of time-dependent line graphs, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to produce rate of change data for each of these lines to inform their respective trend arrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because the changing colors and directions of arrow icons allow for a user to quickly identify fluctuations to the measurement items, rather than trying to visually determine rate-of-change of a line graph. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both Harper and the combination method deal with displaying data to a user via a screen or monitor, and the combination method contains the time-dependent data needed to calculate rate-of-change information for the trend arrows taught by Harper.
Regarding claim 3, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker and further in view of Harper discloses (with citations directed toward Harper) that the figure is an arrow, whose direction indicates an increase, a decrease, or no change (when trend information icon 324 is horizontal, measurements are stable or there is only gradual change in the measurement; when trend information icon is pointing diagonally or straight downward, there is a decrease in the measurement; when the trend information icon is pointing diagonally or straight upward, there is an increase in the measurement [0099]) and whose color, tone, or size indicates an amount of change (“the trend information icon 324 is color coded based on a rate of change” [0099]; green means stable or only gradual change, while red may mean rapid change).
Regarding claim 4, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker and further in view of Harper discloses (with citations directed toward Harper) that the fluctuation trends of the measurement items are determined on a basis of values of at least two points near a focused sampling point in time or position (the trend information icon 324 represents a rate of change of the received data [0099]; at least two points must be sampled in order to calculate a rate of change from time-dependent sensor data).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 2014/0278242 A1) in view of Edwards (US 9015173 B2) and Becker (US 10665128 B2), and in further view of Non-patent literature reference A (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30121773/) (hereinafter referred to as NPL-A).
Regarding claim 7, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker (hereinafter referred to as the combination) disclose each of the limitations of claim 6. However, the combination does not expressly disclose that if a certain determination is made in the determination process, at least a color or a line type is changed on the graph within a range indicating a measurement item subjected to the certain determination.
NPL-A discloses a method for displaying line data wherein, if the data exceeds a threshold, the line in the line plot is changed to a different color to reflect this. The original question on this forum requested code for modifying the first plot on page 1 of the document so that it would appear like the plot on page 2 of the document, wherein the poster has drawn red over lines pertaining to values above their required threshold (“to visualise the values that exceeds y = 15” [page 1]). While this second figure is only a drawing to illustrate the request, an answer provided a solution wherein the line plot has been altered as requested so that when the values exceed the desired threshold, the line is changed from blue to red (see first figure of answer by user “Marijn van Vliet” on page 7). The user who answered this question additionally provided code that makes use of if/else statements for making this change to a plot (see page 6 for solution code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of NPL-A for a change in line color on a graph following a determination (i.e., if a value is above a threshold) to modify the combination method detailed with regard to claim 6. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use a code to alter the color of each line during time periods in which the measurement items have been determined to be outside of the target and/or threshold values by the discontinuity analysis detailed with regard to claim 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as it allows for quick visualization of determinations regarding the data displayed in the method. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because the disclosure of the combination, in particular Lamers, includes at least one computer processor to populate the display [Lamers: 0004-0005], which would be capable of processing code using if/else statements, as disclosed in NPL-A.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 2014/0278242 A1) in view of Edwards (US 9015173 B2) and Becker (US 10665128 B2), and in further view of Ikeda (US 2007/0068910 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker does not expressly disclose that a measurement item relating to the production condition information includes a detected value of at least wire consumption, a wire consumption rate, arc percentage, a feed load, and a number of short circuits.
Ikeda discloses an arc welding system that is capable of collecting and displaying waveform data related to the welding operation [abstract].
Further, Ikeda teaches that a measurement item relating to the production condition information includes a detected value of at least wire consumption (optional limitation), a wire consumption rate (optional limitation), arc percentage (optional limitation), a feed load (optional limitation), and a number of short circuits (the number of times of short circuits is an option that can be selected for waveform data [0028]; Fig. 5 shows representative waveform data; though number of times of short circuits was not selected in the example in Fig. 5, Fig. 4 shows where a user can select number of times of short circuit as an option for waveform data to be recorded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display method disclosed by Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker (hereinafter referred to as the combination method) using the teaching of Ikeda for adding a display of the number of short circuits during a welding operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the number of times of short circuits when the short circuits and arcs are generated repetitively provides an element for management of the welding quality” (Ikeda: [0017]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both references deal with display of welding-related data and the number of short circuits taught by Ikeda are identified via the current and voltage (Ikeda: [0019]), which Lamers is already configured to be measuring and displaying.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 2014/0278242 A1) in view of Edwards (US 9015173 B2) and Becker (US 10665128 B2), and in further view of Okizaki (US 2022/0339728 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker (hereinafter referred to as the combination) does not expressly disclose that a measurement item relating to the correction information includes a detected value of at least an amount of sensing correction or an amount of arc sensor correction.
Okizaki discloses a system to assist in welding operations [title, abstract]. The system includes camera systems to monitor the welding operation and a correction instruction unit to instruct users to apply corrective motion to their weld (motion capture system 4, molten pool observation camera 5, correction instruction unit 36 [Fig. 1, 0096-0097]). Data from the weld is then displayed in plots on a display screen, including the corrective motion (display screen 101 [Fig. 11, 0136]; display fields 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, and 112 show welding speed, weaving width and interval, torch height, and torch angles over time).
Thus, Okizaki teaches that a measurement item relating to the correction information includes a detected value of at least an amount of sensing correction or an amount of arc sensor correction. Specifically, Fig. 11 disclosed by Okizaki shows a section of the weaving interval display field 106 wherein the interval is out of range, then motion is corrected to bring it back within the acceptable range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Okizaki of a display including correction information to modify the combination method. Specifically, using the camera detailed above regarding claim 1 from the combination method, one could track the movement of the weld (i.e., weaving, height and speed as disclosed by Okizaki). Following, one would have added the positional plots showing any corrections made to the movement to the plots showing voltage, current, and wire feed speed disclosed by Lamers from the combination method detailed regarding claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow for an operator to visually correlate corrections they made to their movement during a weld with changes to other measurement items of interest, such as those discussed regarding claim 1. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both references deal with monitoring and displaying of welding-related information.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 2014/0278242 A1) in view of Edwards (US 9015173 B2) and Becker (US 10665128 B2), and in further view of Becker (US 2021/0027659 A1, hereinafter referred to as Becker (2021)).
Regarding claim 13, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker (hereinafter referred to as the combination) does not expressly disclose that a measurement item relating to the welding phenomenon information includes a detected value of at least a spatter, fumes, arc length, arc width, a welding defect, molten pool width, molten pool height, or temperature of a molten pool or a droplet.
Becker (2021) discloses a system for monitoring and training welding operations [title, abstract]. The system includes welding equipment that is connected to sensors as well as a display monitor and screen (welding stand 102, welding tool 118, power supply 108, sensors 104, display monitor 128, and display screen 129 [Fig. 1, 0033, 0047]). The display shows results from a welding operation to the operator which include graphs of work angle, travel angle, arc length, travel speed, voltage, and amperage [Fig. 4, 0064].
Thus, Becker (2021) teaches that a measurement item relating to the welding phenomenon information includes a detected value of at least a spatter (optional limitation), fumes (optional limitation), arc length (“training results screen 400 […] shows visual representations (e.g., graphs) of […] arc length” [Fig. 4, 0064]), arc width (optional limitation), a welding defect (optional limitation), molten pool width (optional limitation), molten pool height (optional limitation), or temperature of a molten pool or a droplet (optional limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Becker (2021) of a display including a plot of the arc length over time to modify to combination method. Specifically, using the sensors disclosed by Becker (2021) (i.e., sensors 104 [Fig. 1, 0033]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have measured the arc length of the welding operation. Following, this data would be incorporated into the plots of the display from the combination method detailed regarding claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because arc length is a parameter which is relevant to the performance of a welding operation (Becker (2021): [0060]) and thus would be useful to display for a user to monitor their welding technique. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both references deal with monitoring and display of arc welding-related information.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons detailed in claim 13 wherein the welding phenomenon information (i.e., the arc length) is a detected value and is displayed on the display screen.
PNG
media_image4.png
576
453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4. Fig. 1 disclosed by Lee, annotated to show data-capture set-up on three-dimensional printer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 2014/0278242 A1) in view of Edwards (US 9015173 B2) and Becker (US 10665128 B2), and in further view of Lee (US 2019/0178755 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lamers in view of Edwards and Becker (hereinafter referred to as the combination) disclose each of the limitations of claim 1, which are directed toward a method for displaying welding-related information. The limitations of claim 17 substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1, however, they are directed toward deposition-related information.
Lee discloses a method and apparatus for diagnosing performance issues of a three-dimensional printer [Fig. 1, title, abstract]. The method involves acquiring data from a three-dimensional printing job, using sensors attached to the nozzle of the printer to measure X-, Y-, and Z-accelerations as well as acoustic emissions to diagnose printer issues [Figs. 1, 2, and 4A-C, 0047-0048, 0072-0075]. See Annotated Figure 4.
Lee teaches acquiring deposition-related information which includes at least deposition setting information (optional limitation), deposition state information (X-acceleration data [Fig. 4A, 0072], Y-acceleration data [Fig. 4B, 0073], Z-acceleration data [Fig. 4C, 0074], and acoustic emission data [Fig. 4D, 0075]), production condition information (optional limitation), correction information (optional limitation), or deposition phenomenon information (optional limitation).
According to MPEP 2143(B), it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B) states that the rationale for this rejection must show that: (1) the prior art contained a device (method, or product) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, or element) with other components, (2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
In this case, the combination method discloses a method for displaying welding-related information, that utilizes time-dependent data obtained from a welding system (Lamers discloses the welding apparatus, sensor, and measurement apparatus used for obtaining the data relevant to the combination methods; see 103 rejection of claim 16 for more detail). Lee teaches a three-dimensional deposition-type printer that is equipped with sensors to output deposition-related information. Both the welding system disclosed by the combination method and the three-dimensional printer disclosed by Lee are used to manufacture components and are equipped with sensors configured to output time-dependent manufacturing data. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the three-dimensional printer disclosed by Lee for the welding system disclosed by Lamers in the combination method for displaying information before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obtained predictable results with this substitution because the three-dimensional printer is already equipped with sensors that output data into line graphs (see Lee: Figs. 4A-C and Annotated Figure 4) and thus the substitution to use the display method of the combination with the three-dimensional printer would be simple.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights