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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/17/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 180-181 and 202-203 has/have been amended; claim(s) 204 has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 180-203 and 204-226 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 180-182, 184-202, and 225 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herzog et al (US 2004/0217095).
Regarding claim 180, Herzog discloses a processing method of irradiating a build object with a processing energy beam, the build object having been built by an additive manufacturing method in which a plurality of layers are stacked in a layer stack direction, the build object having a surface that (i) includes some ends of the layers and (ii) faces toward a direction that intersects the layer stack direction of the build object, the processing method comprising:
positioning the build object so that the surface faces toward an energy beam irradiation system that is configured to emit a processing energy beam (Shown in the figure below; Positioning is performed by the operator via the Fig. 6 #9 computer, #6 building platform, and #8 adjusting axis. [0040] lines 12-14 ---"An adjusting axis 8 permits an adjustment of the building platform 6 in all directions and the rotation of the building platform 6.”);
and irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam emitted from the energy beam irradiation system so as to melt the surface ([0009] lines 1-4 ---"One feature of the invention is to melt or remove areas of the work piece by the laser during or after the work piece production process, by increasing the energy density of the laser.”) (Shown in the figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
308
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the positioning includes positioning the build object so that a direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to a vertical direction than a direction toward which the surface faces in building the build object (Performed by the operator via the computer; Fig. 4A shows the surface of the build object positioned closer to the vertical direction.), and the irradiating includes irradiating the surface, which has been positioned so that the direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to the vertical direction, with the processing energy beam (Performed by the operator via the controller; Fig. 4A shows the positioned surface of the build object positioned closer to the vertical direction being irradiated by the processing beam.).
Regarding claim 181, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches further comprising forming one or more additional layers on the build object by the additive manufacturing method after performing the melting the surface ([0008] lines 4-11 ---"The method includes applying a material being either a sintering material or a pasty material, layer by layer to a support, from a supply device. The material is then heated into at least a partially melted state by irradiating the material area by area with laser radiation of a laser for bonding constituents of the material with one another in layers to form a work piece, in a way dependent on irradiated areas.” and [0009] lines 1-4 ---"One feature of the invention is to melt or remove areas of the work piece by the laser during or after the work piece production process, by increasing the energy density of the laser.”).
Regarding claim 182, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the build object has been built by the additive layer manufacturing method using the processing energy beam (The build object being built is not a step in the claimed method. Herzog shows an object built before the method is performed, which is required by claim 180.).
Regarding claim 184, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the build object has been built by the additive manufacturing method supplying a material (Shown in the figure below), and the irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam includes irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam without supplying the material ([0039] lines 1-5 ---"In FIGS. 4A and 4B, a hybrid method is represented, removal first being performed on a prefabricated substrate plate in a way according to FIG. 4A and then raised regions of the component being generated by re-melting of metal powders in a way according to FIG. 4B.”) (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 185, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the layer stack direction is a direction from a bottom surface to an upper surface of the build object (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
204
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 188, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein a direction of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position is changed based on a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0036] lines 6-9 ---" In FIG. 3C, the smoothing of component surfaces by passing once again over all the component contours after removing loose powder, with the laser beam constantly vertical, is represented.”) (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
156
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 189, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein an angle between a normal line of the surface of the build object at the irradiation position and an axis line of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position does not change regardless of a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0036] lines 6-9 ---" In FIG. 3C, the smoothing of component surfaces by passing once again over all the component contours after removing loose powder, with the laser beam constantly vertical, is represented.”) (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
156
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 190, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the build object is moved to change an attitude of the build object relative to an axis line of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position ([0040] lines 12-14 ---" An adjusting axis 8 permits an adjustment of the building platform 6 in all directions and the rotation of the building platform 6.” Since the build platform can be moved in all directions, the build piece would be moved in any direction dictated by the build platform.).
Regarding claim 191, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein a direction of a normal line of the surface of the object at the irradiation position does not change regardless of a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0037] lines 15-19 ---" If the laser output is disposed on a compound slide rest, it is possible by making the compound slide rest move over the work piece to achieve the effect that the laser beam impinges at right angles on the work piece surface, whereby the removal accuracy is further improved.”).
Regarding claim 192, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 191), and Herzog teaches wherein the direction of the normal line is a gravity direction (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
204
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 193, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein an intensity or an energy per unit area of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position is changed based on a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0030] lines 1-5 ---"In the next method step according to FIGS. 2A-2D, with a number of alternatives being represented in FIGS. 2A-2D, areas of the work piece are removed by the laser during or after the work piece production process, by increasing the energy density of the laser.”).
Regarding claim 194, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein an intensity or an energy per unit area of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position does not change regardless of a location of the irradiation position on the one of the surface (Abstract ---" The laser irradiation is carried out with a first energy density and/or a first focus diameter. During or after the work piece production process, areas of the work piece are either melted by laser with an increase in energy density or removed.”).
Regarding claim 195, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the surface is smoother after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (This limitation appears to be a result of the claimed method. The cited prior art is capable of performing the claimed method to smooth the surface of the build object.).
Regarding claim 196, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the surface is polished by irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam. (This limitation appears to be a result of the claimed method. The cited prior art is capable of performing the claimed method to polish the surface of the build object.).
Regarding claim 197, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein a color of the surface is changed after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam (This limitation appears to be a result of the claimed method. The cited prior art is capable of performing the claimed method to change the color of the surface of the build object.).
Regarding claim 198, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein a reflectance of the surface is increased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (This limitation appears to be a result of the claimed method. The cited prior art is capable of performing the claimed method to increase the reflectance of the surface of the build object.).
Regarding claim 199, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein a roughness of the surface is decreased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (This limitation appears to be a result of the claimed method. The cited prior art is capable of performing the claimed method to decrease the roughness of the surface of the build object.).
Regarding claim 200, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein a diffusion degree of a light at the surface is decreased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (This limitation appears to be a result of the claimed method. The cited prior art is capable of performing the claimed method to decrease the roughness of the surface of the build object.).
Regarding claim 201, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the positioning the build object is performed by driving a stage on which the build object is mounted ([0040] lines 12-14 ---" An adjusting axis 8 permits an adjustment of the building platform 6 in all directions and the rotation of the building platform 6.”).
Regarding claim 202, Herzog discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a computer program that is executed by a computer (Fig. 6 #9 computer) for controlling a processing apparatus that performs a process of irradiating a build object with a processing energy beam, the build object having been built by an additive manufacturing method in which a plurality of layers are stacked in a layer stack direction, the build object having a surface that (i) includes some ends of the layers and (ii) that faces toward a direction that intersects the layer stack direction of the build object, the computer program causing the computer (Fig. 6 #9 computer; a computer will inherently include a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium) to execute a process that controls the processing apparatus to perform a method comprising:
positioning the build object so that the surface faces toward an energy beam irradiation system that is configured to emit a processing energy beam (Shown in the figure below);
and irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam emitted from the energy beam irradiation system so as to melt the surface ([0009] lines 1-4 ---"One feature of the invention is to melt or remove areas of the work piece by the laser during or after the work piece production process, by increasing the energy density of the laser.”) (Shown in the figure below), wherein the positioning includes positioning the build object so that a direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to a vertical direction than a direction toward which the surface faces in building the build object (Fig. 3B shows the surface of the build object positioned closer to the vertical direction.), and the irradiating includes irradiating the surface, which has been positioned so that the direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to the vertical direction, with the processing energy beam (Fig. 3B shows the positioned surface of the build object positioned closer to the vertical direction being irradiated by the processing beam.) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 225, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches the processing method further comprising: based on a shape information relating to a shape of the build object, changing an irradiation position of the processing energy beam on the surface by moving at least one of the build object and the processing energy beam ([0036] lines 6-9 ---" In FIG. 3C, the smoothing of component surfaces by passing once again over all the component contours after removing loose powder, with the laser beam constantly vertical, is represented.”).
Regarding claim 186, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 225), and Herzog teaches wherein the shape information includes a measured result obtained by a measurement apparatus (Fig. 6 #7 distance meter) that measures the shape of the build object ([0040] lines 15-18 ---" The computer 9 also compares the measured component dimensions with the data entered and sets the adjustment axis 8 under closed-loop or open-loop control.”).
Regarding claim 187, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 225), and Herzog teaches wherein the shape information includes a design information of the build object ([0040] lines 13-18 ---"The desired data can be entered in a computer 9.The computer 9 also compares the measured component dimensions with the data entered and sets the adjustment axis 8 under closed-loop or open-loop control.”).
Claim(s) 203 and 205-224 and 226 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibazaki et al (US 2017/0304947).
Regarding claim 203, Shibazaki discloses a processing apparatus that performs a process of irradiating a build object with a processing energy beam, the build object having been built by an additive manufacturing method in which a plurality of layers are stacked in a layer stack direction, the build object having a surface that (i) includes some ends of the layers and (ii) that faces toward a direction that intersects the layer stack direction of the build object, the processing apparatus comprising:
an energy beam irradiation system (Fig. 1 #500 beam shaping system) that is configured to output a processing energy beam;
a driving system (Fig. 1 #200 movement system) that changes an irradiation position of the processing energy beam on the surface by moving at least one of the build object and the processing energy beam;
and a hardware processor (Fig. 1 #600 controller) configured to control the energy beam irradiation system and the driving system ([0036] lines 1-8 ---" Shaping apparatus 100 is equipped with four systems; a movement system 200, a carrier system 300, a measurement system 400, and a beam shaping system 500, and a controller 600 including these systems that has overall control of shaping apparatus 100. Of these parts, carrier system 300, measurement system 400, and beam shaping system 500 are placed spaced apart from one another in a predetermined direction.”) to: position the build object so that the surface faces toward the energy beam irradiation system; and irradiate the surface that includes the ends of the layers with the processing energy beam emitted from the energy beam irradiation system so as to melt the surface (Examiner notes that the phrase “position the build object so that the surface faces toward the energy beam irradiation system; and irradiate the surface that includes the ends of the layers with the processing energy beam emitted from the energy beam irradiation system so as to melt the surface” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shibazaki can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.),
wherein the hardware processor (Fig. 1 #600 controller) is configured to control the energy beam irradiation system and the driving system to: position the build object so that a direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to a vertical direction than a direction toward which the surface faces in building the build object ([0080] lines 8-18 ---"Here, because the position of table 12 in directions of 6-DOF is controlled on the table coordinate system by controller 600 also during the time of measurement to the test object (workpiece W) described above, control of the position (that is, position and attitude) of workpiece W in directions of 6-DOF including the time of additive manufacturing by three-dimensional shaping can all be performed by an open-loop control of table 12 according to the table coordinate system, after the three-dimensional position and attitude have been correlated to the table coordinate system.”),
and irradiate the surface, which has been positioned so that the direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to the vertical direction, with the processing energy beam ([0094] ---"Light source unit 60 of light source system 510 is connected to controller 600 (refer to FIG. 11), and controller 600 individually controls the on/off of the plurality of laser units 70 structuring light source unit 60. With this control, the amount of light of the laser beam (laser output) irradiated (on the target surface) on workpiece W from beam irradiation section 520 is adjusted.”) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 205, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the build object has been built by the additive manufacturing method using the processing energy beam. "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding claim 206, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the build object has been built by the additive manufacturing method using a build energy beam emitted from a build head"[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), and the processing apparatus comprises a processing head that is different from the build head and that includes the energy beam irradiation system (Fig. 4 shows a light source system and Fig. 5 shows a different light source system. Either embodiment can be used to irradiate the workpiece.).
Regarding claim 207, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the build object has been built by the additive manufacturing method supplying a material (The build object is the workpiece and not an element of the claimed apparatus.),
and the hardware processor is configured to control the energy beam irradiation system and the driving system to irradiate the surface with the processing energy beam without supplying the material ([0007] ---"As it can be seen from this, with DED, because powder material is jetted from the processing head by a necessary amount only when necessary, this saves waste and processing does not have to be performed in a large amount of surplus powder.” and [0036] lines 1-5 –”Shaping apparatus 100 is equipped with four systems; a movement system 200, a carrier system 300, a measurement system 400, and a beam shaping system 500, and a controller 600 including these systems that has overall control of shaping apparatus 100.”).
Regarding claim 208, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the layer stack direction is a direction from a bottom surface to an upper surface of the build object (The stack direction is not an element of the claimed apparatus.).
Regarding claim 211, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the hardware processor controls the driving system (Fig. 1 #200 movement system) to change a direction of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position based on a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0206] lines 37-40 ---" In such a case, the optical properties of condensing optical system 82 can be adjusted by driving a movable lens in at least one direction of the optical axis AX direction and the tilt direction.”).
Regarding claim 212, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein an angle between a normal line of the surface at the irradiation position and an axis line of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position does not change regardless of a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0041] lines 10-12 ---" As it will be described later on, because beam shaping system 500 has a complex structure, it is easier to move the workpiece instead.” The beam shaping system does not move.).
Regarding claim 213, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the driving system (Fig. 1 #200 movement system) moves the build object to change an attitude of the build object relative to an axis line of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position ([0037] lines 3-11 ---"Further, FIG. 3 shows movement system 200 on which a workpiece W is mounted in a perspective view. In the description below, the lateral direction of the page surface in FIG. 2 will be described as a Y-axis direction, a direction orthogonal to the page surface will be described as the X-axis direction, a direction orthogonal to the X-axis and the Y-axis will be described as a Z-axis direction, and rotation (tilt) directions around the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis will be described as θx, θy, and θz directions, respectively.”).
Regarding claim 214, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein a direction of a normal line of the surface at the irradiation position does not change regardless of a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0041] lines 10-12 ---" As it will be described later on, because beam shaping system 500 has a complex structure, it is easier to move the workpiece instead.” The beam shaping system does not move.).
Regarding claim 215, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 214), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the direction of the normal line is a gravity direction (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
594
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 216, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the hardware processor controls the energy beam irradiation system to change an intensity or an energy per unit area of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position based on a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0110] lines 1-7---" Therefore, in the embodiment, mirror array 80 is employed, and controller 600 makes each mirror element 81.sub.p,q operate at an extremely high response so that the incidence angle of the plurality of parallel beams LB entering pupil plane PP of condensing optical system 82 can be controlled respectively. This allows intensity distribution of the beam on shaping surface MP to be set or changed.”).
Regarding claim 217, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the hardware processor controls the energy beam irradiation system so that an intensity or an energy per unit area of the processing energy beam propagating to the irradiation position does not change regardless of a location of the irradiation position on the surface ([0110] lines 1-7---" Therefore, in the embodiment, mirror array 80 is employed, and controller 600 makes each mirror element 81.sub.p,q operate at an extremely high response so that the incidence angle of the plurality of parallel beams LB entering pupil plane PP of condensing optical system 82 can be controlled respectively. This allows intensity distribution of the beam on shaping surface MP to be set or changed.”).
Regarding claim 218, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the surface is smoother after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (Examiner notes that the phrase “the surface is smoother after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shibazaki can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 219, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein a color of the surface is changed after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam (Examiner notes that the phrase “a color of the surface is changed after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shibazaki can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 220, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein a reflectance of the surface is increased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (Examiner notes that the phrase “a reflectance of the surface is increased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shibazaki can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 221, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the surface is polished by irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam (Examiner notes that the phrase “the surface is polished by irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shibazaki can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 222, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein a roughness of the surface is decreased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (Examiner notes that the phrase “a roughness of the surface is decreased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shibazaki can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 223, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein a diffusion degree of a light at the surface is decreased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam (Examiner notes that the phrase “a diffusion degree of a light at the surface is decreased after the surface has been irradiated by the processing energy beam compared to before the irradiation by the processing energy beam” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shibazaki can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 224, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches further comprising a stage (Fig. 3 BS base) on which the build object is mounted, wherein the hardware processor controls the stage to position the build object relative to the processing energy beam ([0074] lines 4-10 ---" That is, controller 600 controls the position in directions of 6-DOF of table 12 by controlling planar motor 26 based on the measurement information of position measurement system 28 and by controlling expansion mechanisms 16.sub.1 to 16.sub.6 based on the measurement values of linear encoders 24.sub.1 to 24.sub.6.”).
Regarding claim 226, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 203), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to control the energy beam irradiation system and the driving system to: based on a shape information relating to a shape of the build object, change an irradiation position of the processing energy beam on the surfaces by moving at least one of the build object and the processing energy beam ([0041] lines 1-7 ---" In shaping apparatus shaping 100 according to the embodiment, position and attitude of the workpiece (table 12) are controlled with respect to beam shaping system 500, or more specifically, a beam from a beam irradiation section to be described later on so that a shaping object of a desired shape is formed of the workpiece at times such as additive manufacturing to the workpiece.”).
Regarding claim 209, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 226), and Shibazaki teaches further comprising a shape measurement apparatus (Fig. 1 #400 measurement system) that measures the shape of the build object, wherein the shape information includes a measured result obtained by the measurement apparatus ([0061] lines 1-7 ---" In the embodiment, as it will be described later on, position information (shape information in the embodiment) within the three-dimensional space of at least a part of the target surface (e.g. the upper surface) of workpiece W mounted on table 12 is measured using measurement system 400, and then additive manufacturing (shaping) is performed on workpiece W after the measurement.”).
Regarding claim 210, Shibazaki teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 226), and Shibazaki teaches wherein the shape information includes a design information of the build object ([0150] ---" Controller 600, first of all, based on measurement values of position measurement system 28 and linear encoders 24.sub.1 to 24.sub.6, moves table 12 by controlling planar motor 26 and expansion mechanism 16.sub.1 to 16.sub.6 based on known target values (such as design information), and positions opening 92a of measurement member 92 at a position on optical axis AX of condensing optical system 82.”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 183 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog et al (US 2004/0217095) as applied to claim 180, in view of Satzger et al (US 2014/0334924).
Regarding claim 183, Herzog teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 180), and Herzog teaches wherein the build object has been built by the additive manufacturing method using a build energy beam emitted from a build head (Fig. 6 shows the build object built before the claimed method is performed.).
However, the irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam includes irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam emitted from a processing head that is different from the build head and that includes the energy beam irradiation system.
Nonetheless, Satzger in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing teaches the irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam includes irradiating the surface with the processing energy beam emitted from a processing head that is different from the build head and that includes the energy beam irradiation system (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
399
483
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Herzog by incorporating the processing head of Satzger for the benefit of improving the generative production of components. (Satzger [0005])
Response to Arguments
For claim 180:
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the positioning includes positioning the build object so that a direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to a vertical direction than a direction toward which the surface faces in building the build object, and the irradiating includes irradiating the surface, which has been positioned so that the direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to the vertical direction, with the processing energy beam. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Herzog teaches positioning includes positioning the build object so that a direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to a vertical direction than a direction toward which the surface faces in building the build object. The operator programs the controller to position the build object in a position where the surface to be irradiated is closer to a vertical direction as shown in the figure below. See the rejection of claim 180.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Herzog teaches the irradiating includes irradiating the surface, which has been positioned so that the direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to the vertical direction, with the processing energy beam. The operator controls the processing beam to irradiate the build object positioned so that the surface to be irradiated is closer to a vertical direction as shown in the figure above. See the rejection of claim 180.
Also, Herzog takes into account how smoothing is performed with consideration to the special orientation of the irradiating device. [0036] lines 4-9 ---" FIG. 3B shows the smoothing of partial areas of the work piece for which the surface vectors lie parallel to the vertical axis Z. In FIG. 3C, the smoothing of component surfaces by passing once again over all the component contours after removing loose powder, with the laser beam constantly vertical, is represented.”
For claim 203:
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the cited prior art does not teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to control the energy beam irradiation system and the driving system to: position the build object so that a direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to a vertical direction than a direction toward which the surface faces in building the build object, and irradiate the surface, which has been positioned so that the direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to the vertical direction, with the processing energy beam, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Furthermore, Shibazaki does teach the cited prior art does not teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to control the energy beam irradiation system and the driving system to: position the build object so that a direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to a vertical direction than a direction toward which the surface faces in building the build object [0080] lines 8-18 ---"Here, because the position of table 12 in directions of 6-DOF is controlled on the table coordinate system by controller 600 also during the time of measurement to the test object (workpiece W) described above, control of the position (that is, position and attitude) of workpiece W in directions of 6-DOF including the time of additive manufacturing by three-dimensional shaping can all be performed by an open-loop control of table 12 according to the table coordinate system, after the three-dimensional position and attitude have been correlated to the table coordinate system.”,
and irradiate the surface, which has been positioned so that the direction toward which the surface faces after the positioning is closer to the vertical direction, with the processing energy beam ([0094] ---"Light source unit 60 of light source system 510 is connected to controller 600 (refer to FIG. 11), and controller 600 individually controls the on/off of the plurality of laser units 70 structuring light source unit 60. With this control, the amount of light of the laser beam (laser output) irradiated (on the target surface) on workpiece W from beam irradiation section 520 is adjusted. See the rejection of claim 203.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights