CTNF 17/441,422 CTNF 94601 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered. Election/Restrictions 08-04 AIA Newly submitted claim 46 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 46 is directed to a method while original claims 13, 15-17, 22-23, and 30-32 are directed towards a system . Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 46 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 33 recites the limitation the stage does not include a holder that holds the workpiece. However, the specification as no support for this. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13, 15-17, 22-23, and 30-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idaka et al (US 2007/0100492 A1) in view of Chandar (US2019/0054700 A1) and Sandstorm (US 2014/0268088 A1) . Regarding claim 13 , Idaka et al discloses a build system (180) that builds a build object into a workpiece (W) disposed on a stage (WS), (figure 10), the build system comprising: an input apparatus (3) that designates a build object position that is built on a workpiece; and a build apparatus (100) that builds a build object on the workpiece; and a control apparatus (control unit 1A) that includes a processor (190 A) and a memory (5) in which a program executable by the processor is stored [0069], wherein Idaka does not explicitly disclose a measurement apparatus that measures as a second position, a position of the workpiece on the stage on which the workpiece is disposed; however, it is conventionally well known to include measurement systems. Analogous art, Sandstorm, discloses a location processor that measure and record first position information of the fiducials in a first coordinate system used by the writing system to apply a first exposure to the workpiece; wherein the optics, detector and location processor further measure and record second position information of the fiducials or of a transfer from the fiducials onto another layer of the workpiece after repositioning of the workpiece on the stage; an exposure controller that uses the second position information to align a second coordinate system relative to the first coordinate system and to apply a second exposure to the workpiece using the second coordinate system (claim 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a measurement apparatus that measures a second position indicating a position of the workpiece in a stage coordination system as taught by Sandstrom into the system taught by Idaka in order to ensure alignment of the workpiece item [0006]. Further, analogous art, Chandar, discloses utilizing coordinate measuring machine (CMM) for measure at least one measured dimensions [0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a measurement apparatus that measures a second position indicating a position of the workpiece in a stage coordination system as taught by Chandar into the system taught by Idaka since it is conventionally well known to use CMM in additive manufacturing. Further, the combination of Idaka, Chandar, and Sandstorm teach the processor of the control apparatus is configured to control (control unit 1A Idaka and processor [0070])in accordance with the program stored in the memory [Idaka 0069], the build apparatus to build the build object based on designated through the input apparatus [Idaka 0016], the second position measured by the measurement apparatus, and the information relating to a shape of the build object (claim 17 of Sandstorm). Therefore, it is the combination of Idaka and Sandstorm that discloses using measurement system to position the workpiece in order to ensure alignment of the workpiece item [0006 of Sandstorm]. Regarding claim 15 , Idaka teaches wherein the build system further comprises a display apparatus that displays (82) an image of the workpiece on the basis of the position information about the part of the workpiece [0014]. Regarding claim 16 , Idaka teaches the display apparatus displays the build object position information associated with the displayed image of the workpiece [0014]. Regarding claim 17, Idaka teaches the input apparatus allows a user to input the information relating to the build object position on the displayed image of the workpiece [0015]. Regarding claim 22, Idaka teaches wherein the process of the control apparatus modifies, in accordance with the program stored in the memory [0069], information relating to a shape of the build object and outputs modified information relating to the shape of the build object based on the first potion, the second position, and the information relating to the shape of the build object [0112-0113, 0118]. Regarding claim 23 , Idaka teaches wherein the processor of the control apparatus controls, in accordance with the program stored in the memory [0069] build apparatus builds the build objection on the workpiece by using the modified information relating to the shape of the build object [0118]. Regarding claims 30-32 , the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Therefore, the CMM machine taught by Chandar is capable of wherein the measurement apparatus acquires measurement information of the workpiece by projecting a plurality of stripe patterns on the workpiece; wherein the measurement apparatus projects the plurality of stripe patterns on the workpiece in which widths of stripes of the stripe patterns are different from each other; wherein the measurement apparatus projects the plurality of stripe patterns on the workpiece as a plurality of projection patterns whose phases are different from each other. Regarding claim 33, Idaka and Sandstorm does not disclose a holder therefore both prior arts teach the stage does not include a holder that holds the workpiece. Regarding claim 34, Sandstorm teaches the measurement apparatus measures the position of the workpiece on the stage when the workpiece is positioned at a measurement position of the measurement apparatus (claim 17). Regarding claim 35, Sandstorm discloses a material deposition [0070] which implies it’s connected to a supply apparatus that supplies materials to build position. As for the limitation, a positional relationship between the designated first position and the build position is a predetermined relationship, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Regarding claim 36, Sandstorm teaches the build position is movable relative to the stage [0070]. Regarding claim 37, Sandstorm teaches wherein the measurement apparatus measures a position of the stage when the build position is positioned at a measurement position of the measurement apparatus (claim 17 and [0006]). Regarding claim 38, Sandstorm teaches wherein the first position is the build position (claim 17, further the first position does not add structure. Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities). Regarding claim 39, Idaka teaches the build apparatus comprises a beam irradiation apparatus that irradiates the build position with an energy beam [0009, 0018]. Regarding claim 40, Idaka teaches the processor of the control apparatus is configured to generate processing information, which is used to build the build object on the workpiece, based on the designated first potion [0069, 0080]. Regarding claim 41, Idaka teaches wherein the processor of the control apparatus is configured to generate the processing information based on the designated first position and the processing model information corresponding to the shape of the build object [0016-0017, 0122]. Regarding claim 42, Idaka teaches wherein the processor of the control apparatus is configured to generate the processing information based on the designated first position, the processing model information, and workpiece model information related to a shape of the workpiece [0016-0017, 0122]. Regarding claim 43, Sandstorm teaches the build system further comprises a guide light irradiation apparatus (beam splitter 315) that irradiates the build position with a guide light; and an imaging apparatus (350) that images the workpiece and the guide light with which the workpiece is irradiated; Idaka teaches the build system further comprises a guide light irradiation apparatus [0069] that irradiates the build position with a guide light; and an imaging apparatus [0068] that images the workpiece and the guide light with which the workpiece is irradiated Regarding claim 44, Idaka teaches a display apparatus that displays an image of the workpiece [0068] and an image of the guide light (6) with which the workpiece is irradiated [0069]. Regarding claim 45, Idaka teaches wherein the build system further comprises a display apparatus that displays an image of the workpiece having a defect part and the designated first position that is displayed in association with an image of the defect part [0068, 0090, 0091, 0097, 0101, 0103]. Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the newly cited reference Sandstorm (US 2014/0268088 A1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm. 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. /FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 2 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 3 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 4 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 5 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 6 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 7 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 8 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 9 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 10 Art Unit: 1754 Application/Control Number: 17/441,422 Page 11 Art Unit: 1754
Prosecution Insights