DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyminski et al., US 2024/0157641 A1 (Tyminski).
Regarding claim 1, Tyminski teaches a system (laser-based system) ([0004]), comprising:
an apparatus for building a component by additive manufacturing using an energy beam (charged-particle beam (CPB) additive manufacturing (AM) system) ([0004]), the apparatus comprising a build plane on which the component is built (wherein the target area 106 on substrate 108 is on an XYZ stage 109) (Fig. 1; [0038]);
a camera (camera 140) (Fig. 1; [0040]) having a line of sight on the build plane (having a line of sight to the XYZ stage 109) (Fig. 1; [0040]); and
a computing device (controller 130) (Fig. 1; [0040]) configured to:
receive an image of the build plane captured by the camera (the camera 140 is coupled to the controller 130 to provide an image) (Fig. 4; [0040]), the image including at least one fiducial marker positioned on the build plane (the image having a defined reference patter placed as substrate 108) (Fig. 1; [0040]);
identify coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the image in a coordinate system of the camera (identifying coordinates of the pattern in image coordinates (pixel coordinates)) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]);
identify coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in a coordinate system of the apparatus (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]);
generate an image transfer function (pixel-physical coordinate mapping) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) in accordance with the identified coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the coordinate system of the camera (identifying coordinates of the pattern in image coordinates (pixel coordinates)) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]) and the identified coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the coordinate system of the apparatus (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]); and
generate a distortion-corrected image by application of the image transfer function to the image (applying the pixel-physical coordinate mapping to the distorted image to create a corrected image; i.e. a distortion corrected image) (Fig. 3A; [0043]).
Although Tyminski does not explicitly teach a “transfer function” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that since the pixel-physical coordinate mapping 304 (Fig. 3A; [0043]) maps/transfers the coordinates from pixel coordinates to physical coordinates to create a corrected image 306 (Fig. 3A; [0043]), that this mapping/transferring is an obvious transfer function.
Regarding claim 4, Tyminski teaches wherein the image of the build plane captured by the camera is at least one of a pre-weld image, an in-weld image (wherein the image can be of the plasma emission) ([0040]), or a post-weld image (calibration based on a reticle image can be reused; i.e. pre-weld) ([0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Tyminski teaches wherein the camera is positioned off-axis relative to the build plane (wherein the camera 140 is positioned at a tilt of an angle with respect to the substrate 108) (Fig. 1; [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Tyminski teaches wherein the at least one fiducial marker corresponds to the component on the build plane (an image of a reticle having a defined reference pattern placed as substrate 108) (Fig. 1; [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Tyminski teaches wherein the image transfer function converts coordinates in the coordinate system of the camera and into coordinates in the coordinate system of the apparatus (wherein the pixel-physical coordinate mapping 304 takes pixel coordinates and maps them to physical coordinates) (Fig. 3A; [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Tyminski teaches an apparatus (apparatus) ([0029]), comprising:
one or more processors (controller 130) (Figs. 1 and 7; [0040]); and
non-transitory memory comprising machine-readable instructions (memory 136 that stores processor-executable instructions) (Figs. 1 and 7; [0040]) that, when executed by the one or more processors (executed by controller 130) (Figs. 1 and 7; [0040]), cause the apparatus (apparatus) ([0029]) to:
receive an image of a build plane captured by a camera (the camera 140 is coupled to the controller 130 to provide an image) (Fig. 4; [0040]), the image including at least one fiducial marker positioned on the build plane (the image having a defined reference patter placed as substrate 108) (Fig. 1; [0040]);
identify coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the image in a coordinate system of the camera (identifying coordinates of the pattern in image coordinates (pixel coordinates)) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]);
identify coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in a coordinate system of the apparatus (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]);
generate an image transfer function (pixel-physical coordinate mapping) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) in accordance with the identified coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the coordinate system of the camera (identifying coordinates of the pattern in image coordinates (pixel coordinates)) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]) and the identified coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the coordinate system of the apparatus (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]); and
generate a distortion-corrected image by application of the image transfer function to the image (applying the pixel-physical coordinate mapping to the distorted image to create a corrected image; i.e. a distortion corrected image) (Fig. 3A; [0043]).
Although Tyminski does not explicitly teach a “transfer function” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that since the pixel-physical coordinate mapping 304 (Fig. 3A; [0043]) maps/transfers the coordinates from pixel coordinates to physical coordinates to create a corrected image 306 (Fig. 3A; [0043]), that this mapping/transferring is an obvious transfer function.
Regarding claim 12, Tyminski teaches wherein the image of the build plane captured by the camera is at least one of a pre-weld image, an in-weld image (wherein the image can be of the plasma emission) ([0040]), or a post-weld image (calibration based on a reticle image can be reused; i.e. pre-weld) ([0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Tyminski teaches wherein the camera is positioned off-axis relative to the build plane (wherein the camera 140 is positioned at a tilt of an angle with respect to the substrate 108) (Fig. 1; [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Tyminski teaches wherein the at least one fiducial marker corresponds to a component on the build plane (an image of a reticle having a defined reference pattern placed as substrate 108) (Fig. 1; [0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Tyminski teaches wherein the image transfer function converts coordinates in the coordinate system of the camera and into coordinates in the coordinate system of the apparatus (wherein the pixel-physical coordinate mapping 304 takes pixel coordinates and maps them to physical coordinates) (Fig. 3A; [0043]).
Regarding claim 17, Tyminski teaches a method, comprising:
receiving an image of a build plane of an additive manufacturing system (charged-particle beam (CPB) additive manufacturing (AM) system) ([0004]) captured by a camera (the camera 140 is coupled to the controller 130 to provide an image) (Fig. 4; [0040]), the image including at least one fiducial marker positioned on the build plane (the image having a defined reference patter placed as substrate 108) (Fig. 1; [0040]);
identifying coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the image in a coordinate system of the camera (identifying coordinates of the pattern in image coordinates (pixel coordinates)) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]);
identifying coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in a coordinate system (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]) of the additive manufacturing system (charged-particle beam (CPB) additive manufacturing (AM) system) ([0004]);
generating an image transfer function (pixel-physical coordinate mapping) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) in accordance with the identified coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the coordinate system of the camera (identifying coordinates of the pattern in image coordinates (pixel coordinates)) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]) and the identified coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the coordinate system (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]) of the additive manufacturing system (charged-particle beam (CPB) additive manufacturing (AM) system) ([0004]); and
generating a distortion-corrected image by application of the image transfer function to the image (applying the pixel-physical coordinate mapping to the distorted image to create a corrected image; i.e. a distortion corrected image) (Fig. 3A; [0043]).
Although Tyminski does not explicitly teach a “transfer function” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that since the pixel-physical coordinate mapping 304 (Fig. 3A; [0043]) maps/transfers the coordinates from pixel coordinates to physical coordinates to create a corrected image 306 (Fig. 3A; [0043]), that this mapping/transferring is an obvious transfer function.
Regarding claim 19, Tyminski teaches wherein the image of the build plane captured by the camera is at least one of a pre-weld image, an in-weld image (wherein the image can be of the plasma emission) ([0040]), or a post-weld image (calibration based on a reticle image can be reused; i.e. pre-weld) ([0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Tyminski teaches wherein the image transfer function converts coordinates in the coordinate system of the camera and into coordinates in the coordinate system (wherein the pixel-physical coordinate mapping 304 takes pixel coordinates and maps them to physical coordinates) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) of the additive manufacturing system (charged-particle beam (CPB) additive manufacturing (AM) system) ([0004]).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyminski et al., US 2024/0157641 A1 (Tyminski), and further in view of Buller et al., US 11,999,110 B2 (Buller).
Regarding claim 2, Tyminski teaches a camera 140 (Fig. 1; [0040]).
However, Tyminski does not explicitly teach what type of camera it is; and specifically if it “is a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) camera, a charged-coupled device camera, an electron-multiplying charge-coupled device camera, or a back-illuminated CMOS camera”.
Buller teaches a system for assisting in prediction, observation, and/or quantification, (e.g., in real time) of failures in (i) a manufacturing mechanism and/or (ii) a process for forming one or more 3D objects (col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 3); wherein examples of 3D printing may include additive printing (e.g., layer by layer printing, or additive manufacturing) (col. 16, lines 37-38); and wherein a camera is a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) camera, a charged-coupled device camera, an electron-multiplying charge-coupled device camera, or a back-illuminated CMOS camera (a camera system, CCD, CMOS, detector array, a photodiode, or line-scan CCD (or CMOS)) (col. 46, line 67 to col. 47, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyminski to include multiple different types of cameras since it is an obvious design choice; and wherein numerous variations, changes, and substitutions will now occur to those skilled in the art without departing from the invention (Buller; col. 67, lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 6, Tyminski teaches a computing device (controller 130) (Fig. 1; [0040]) for identifying coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in a coordinate system (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]).
However, Tyminski does not explicitly teach further configured to identify “a set of center coordinates” of the at least one fiducial marker in the received image.
Buller teaches a system for assisting in prediction, observation, and/or quantification, (e.g., in real time) of failures in (i) a manufacturing mechanism and/or (ii) a process for forming one or more 3D objects (col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 3); wherein examples of 3D printing may include additive printing (e.g., layer by layer printing, or additive manufacturing) (col. 16, lines 37-38); and wherein further configured to identify a set of center coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the received image (wherein using an alignment marker “X” and a center portion of the alignment marker can be used in the captured image) (col. 32, lines 19-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyminski to include multiple different types of fiducial markers since it is an obvious design choice; and wherein numerous variations, changes, and substitutions will now occur to those skilled in the art without departing from the invention (Buller; col. 67, lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 10, Tyminski teaches a camera 140 (Fig. 1; [0040]).
However, Tyminski does not explicitly teach what type of camera it is; and specifically if it “is a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) camera, a charged-coupled device camera, an electron-multiplying charge-coupled device camera, or a back-illuminated CMOS camera”.
Buller teaches a system for assisting in prediction, observation, and/or quantification, (e.g., in real time) of failures in (i) a manufacturing mechanism and/or (ii) a process for forming one or more 3D objects (col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 3); wherein examples of 3D printing may include additive printing (e.g., layer by layer printing, or additive manufacturing) (col. 16, lines 37-38); and wherein a camera is a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) camera, a charged-coupled device camera, an electron-multiplying charge-coupled device camera, or a back-illuminated CMOS camera (a camera system, CCD, CMOS, detector array, a photodiode, or line-scan CCD (or CMOS)) (col. 46, line 67 to col. 47, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyminski to include multiple different types of cameras since it is an obvious design choice; and wherein numerous variations, changes, and substitutions will now occur to those skilled in the art without departing from the invention (Buller; col. 67, lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 14, Tyminski teaches an apparatus (apparatus) ([0029]) for identifying coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in a coordinate system (identifying the coordinates of the pattern in physical coordinates) (Figs. 1 and 3A; [0040] and [0043]).
However, Tyminski does not explicitly teach further configured to identify “a set of center coordinates” of the at least one fiducial marker in the received image.
Buller teaches a system for assisting in prediction, observation, and/or quantification, (e.g., in real time) of failures in (i) a manufacturing mechanism and/or (ii) a process for forming one or more 3D objects (col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 3); wherein examples of 3D printing may include additive printing (e.g., layer by layer printing, or additive manufacturing) (col. 16, lines 37-38); and wherein further configured to identify a set of center coordinates of the at least one fiducial marker in the received image (wherein using an alignment marker “X” and a center portion of the alignment marker can be used in the captured image) (col. 32, lines 19-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyminski to include multiple different types of fiducial markers since it is an obvious design choice; and wherein numerous variations, changes, and substitutions will now occur to those skilled in the art without departing from the invention (Buller; col. 67, lines 29-31).
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyminski et al., US 2024/0157641 A1 (Tyminski), and further in view of Scime et al., US 11,458,542 B2 (Scime).
Regarding claim 3, Tyminski teaches wherein the computing device (controller 130) (Fig. 1; [0040]) is further configured to: receive at least one subsequent image (wherein images can be taken periodically; processing images) ([0040-0041]) of the build plane captured by the camera (the camera 140 is coupled to the controller 130 to provide an image) (Fig. 4; [0040-0041]), the image including at least one component positioned on the build plane (the image including a substrate with a target area on the stage) (Fig. 1; [0040]); apply the image transfer function (pixel-physical coordinate mapping) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) to the at least one subsequent image to generate at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image (applying the pixel-physical coordinate mapping to the distorted image to create a corrected image; i.e. a distortion corrected image) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) (wherein images can be taken periodically to correct for change over time; calibration data can be reused) ([0040]).
However, Tyminski does not explicitly teach to “analyze the at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image to identify at least one anomaly of the at least one component”.
Scime teaches Detection and classification of anomalies for powder bed metal additive manufacturing (Abstract); and wherein to analyze the at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image (a preprocessing step, the images of the powder bed build layer frame can be calibrated to correct the field of view, perspective distortion, and lighting artifacts) (col. 16, lines 63-66) to identify at least one anomaly of the at least one component (to identify an anomaly, such as re-coater blade impacts, binder deposition issues, spatter generation, and some porosities, are surface-visible at each layer of the building process) (Fig. 3; Abstract and col. 8, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyminski to include detecting an anomaly since it can be helpful in providing a tool for changing process controls to prevent or reduce anomaly generation during particular additive manufacturing situations in the future (Scime; col. 8, lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 11, Tyminski teaches the machine-readable instructions further cause the apparatus (apparatus) ([0029]) to: receive at least one subsequent image (wherein images can be taken periodically; processing images) ([0040-0041]) of the build plane captured by the camera (the camera 140 is coupled to the controller 130 to provide an image) (Fig. 4; [0040-0041]), the image including at least one component positioned on the build plane (the image including a substrate with a target area on the stage) (Fig. 1; [0040]); apply the image transfer function (pixel-physical coordinate mapping) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) to the at least one subsequent image to generate at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image (applying the pixel-physical coordinate mapping to the distorted image to create a corrected image; i.e. a distortion corrected image) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) (wherein images can be taken periodically to correct for change over time; calibration data can be reused) ([0040]).
However, Tyminski does not explicitly teach to “analyze the at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image to identify at least one anomaly of the at least one component”.
Scime teaches Detection and classification of anomalies for powder bed metal additive manufacturing (Abstract); and wherein to analyze the at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image (a preprocessing step, the images of the powder bed build layer frame can be calibrated to correct the field of view, perspective distortion, and lighting artifacts) (col. 16, lines 63-66) to identify at least one anomaly of the at least one component (to identify an anomaly, such as re-coater blade impacts, binder deposition issues, spatter generation, and some porosities, are surface-visible at each layer of the building process) (Fig. 3; Abstract and col. 8, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyminski to include detecting an anomaly since it can be helpful in providing a tool for changing process controls to prevent or reduce anomaly generation during particular additive manufacturing situations in the future (Scime; col. 8, lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 18, Tyminski teaches further comprising: receiving at least one subsequent image (wherein images can be taken periodically; processing images) ([0040-0041]) of the build plane captured by the camera (the camera 140 is coupled to the controller 130 to provide an image) (Fig. 4; [0040-0041]), the image including at least one component positioned on the build plane (the image including a substrate with a target area on the stage) (Fig. 1; [0040]); applying the image transfer function (pixel-physical coordinate mapping) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) to the at least one subsequent image to generate at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image (applying the pixel-physical coordinate mapping to the distorted image to create a corrected image; i.e. a distortion corrected image) (Fig. 3A; [0043]) (wherein images can be taken periodically to correct for change over time; calibration data can be reused) ([0040]).
However, Tyminski does not explicitly teach “analyzing the at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image to identify at least one anomaly of the at least one component”.
Scime teaches Detection and classification of anomalies for powder bed metal additive manufacturing (Abstract); and wherein analyzing the at least one subsequent distortion-corrected image (a preprocessing step, the images of the powder bed build layer frame can be calibrated to correct the field of view, perspective distortion, and lighting artifacts) (col. 16, lines 63-66) to identify at least one anomaly of the at least one component (to identify an anomaly, such as re-coater blade impacts, binder deposition issues, spatter generation, and some porosities, are surface-visible at each layer of the building process) (Fig. 3; Abstract and col. 8, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyminski to include detecting an anomaly since it can be helpful in providing a tool for changing process controls to prevent or reduce anomaly generation during particular additive manufacturing situations in the future (Scime; col. 8, lines 41-45).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J VANCHY JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/MICHAEL J VANCHY JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Michael.Vanchy@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights