CTFR 17/623,636 CTFR 95608 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. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 8/7/2019 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2019031218 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Response to Arguments III. Provisional non-statutory double patenting 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the claims of the instant application do not appreciably change the claims in such a manner to overcome the double patenting rejection of 1/8/2026. IV. 35 U.S.C 112(b) Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 1/8/2026 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended. V. 35 U.S.C 112(a)(1) 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the claims of the instant application do not appreciably change the claims in such a manner to overcome the 102(a)(1) rejection of 1/8/2026. The applicant argues that Bautze does not stop the equivalent height measurer, interferometer 140, when taking a measurement and that for this reason the instant application reads over the prior art. The examiner argues that the applicant has made a correct analysis of Bautze , however, the claim language discloses that only the drive stage stops and therefore the applicant’s argument is not relevant to the claim language. The examiner believes that the art of Bautze teaches performing the measuring at points (par. 63 and 64) which is inherent to be a condition where the apparatus of Bautze is either be moving or stopped. Further, in relation to independent claim 21, the applicant is reminded that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the applicant argues that stopping the drive stage is not taught in Bautze , the examiner may argue that since Bautze is also capable of performing dynamic measurements that the invention of Bautze is also inherently capable of performing the measurements while the apparatus is stopped . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim 21, 26, and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 17636372 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are effectively obvious variants of one another. The application claims are broader in at least one aspect and also recite additional features not claimed in the patent claims. Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the patent claims and the application claims highlights what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims. Goodman- Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. See 112(f) section herein for the interpretations the nonce terms of the instant application. 17636372 Instant Application 1 . A n additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: height measurement circuitry to measure a height at measurement position of a build object formed on a workpiece and output a measurement result indicating a result of the measurement during additive processing in which the build object is formed by repeatedly stacking a processing material that is melted at a processing position on a surface of the workpiece; and control circuitry to control a processing condition in performing new stacking at the measurement position in accordance with the measurement result, wherein the height measurement circuitry includes: a measurement illumination system to irradiate the measurement position with illumination light for measurement; a light receiving optical system to receive, by a light receiving element, reflected light obtained by reflection of the illumination light for measurement at the measurement position; and calculation circuitry to calculate the height of the build object formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light receiving position of the reflected light on the light receiving element, an optical axis of the illumination light for measurement is inclined with respect to an optical axis of the light receiving optical system, and the illumination light for measurement is emitted over an angular range of at least ±90 degrees with reference to a direction opposite a direction of supply of the processing material with the optical axis of the light receiving optical system as a center of a rotational angle range. 21. An additive manufacturing apparatus to form an object by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto a workpiece, the machining material solidified, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a drive stage that changes a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points; a height measurer that measures , while the drive stage is stopped at one of the machining points, a height of the object formed at the machining point; and a controller that controls a machining condition for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result provided by the height measurer. Thus, it is apparent that the more specific 17636372 claim 1 encompass application claim 21, respectively. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since application claim 21 is anticipated by 17636372 claim 1, respectively, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 21 are obvious over 17636372 claim 1. With respect to the additional features recited in the application claims, the inclusion of a drive stage to change a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points is an obvious improvement in view of WO2018178387A1 Bautze . Bautze teaches the use of a drive stage to change a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points (“at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position). Since the 17636372 claims recites the use of in which the build object is formed by repeatedly stacking a processing material that is melted at a processing position on a surface of the workpiece , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of 17636372 with a drive stage to perform the act of changing a processing position. 08-35 Claim s 21 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18022175 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are effectively obvious variants of one another. The application claims are broader in at least one aspect and also recite additional features not claimed in the patent claims. Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the patent claims and the application claims highlights what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims. Goodman- Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. See 112(f) section herein for the interpretations the nonce terms of the instant application. 18022175 Instant Application 1 . A 3D printing apparatus that forms an object by radiating machining light to a machining material supplied to a machining position to melt the machining material, and stacking, on a workpiece, beads that are solidified products of the machining material melted, the 3D printing apparatus comprising: a machining optical system including an objective lens through which the machining light passes, and configured to radiate the machining light to the machining position; a measurement illuminator to supply illumination light for measuring a size of the object formed; a light-receiving element to detect reflected light that is the illumination light reflected by the object; a light-receiving optical system to concentrate the reflected light on the light-receiving element; a calculation circuitry to compute, through calculation using a detection result of the reflected light in the light-receiving element, a width of the object in a third direction perpendicular to a first direction in which the machining position is moved with respect to the workpiece and a second direction in which the beads are stacked; and a control circuitry to control a machining condition for forming the beads based on a computation result of the width of the object, wherein the calculation circuitry computes a cross-sectional height distribution of the object based on the detection result of the reflected light, and computes the width of the object based on the cross-sectional height distribution. 21. An additive manufacturing apparatus to form an object by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto a workpiece, the machining material solidified, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a drive stage that changes a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points; a height measurer that measures , while the drive stage is stopped at one of the machining points, a height of the object formed at the machining point; and a controller that controls a machining condition for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result provided by the height measurer. 26. (New) The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the height measurer includes: a measurement illuminator that irradiates a measurement position with measurement illumination light; and a light receiver that receives reflected light that is the measurement illumination light reflected at the measurement position, and the height measurer calculates the height of the object formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light- receiving position of the reflected light on the light receiver. Thus, it is apparent that the more specific 18022175 claim 1 encompass application claim 21, respectively. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since application claim 21 is anticipated by 17636372 claim 1, respectively, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 21 are obvious over 17636372 claim 1. With respect to the additional features recited in the application claims, the inclusion of a drive stage to change a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points is an obvious improvement in view of WO2018178387A1 Bautze . Bautze teaches the use of a drive stage to change a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points (“at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position). Since the 18022175 claims recites the use of forms an object by radiating machining light to a machining material supplied to a machining position to melt the machining material, and stacking, on a workpiece, beads that are solidified products of the machining material melted , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of 18022175 with a drive stage to perform the act of changing a processing position. Claims 21, 26, and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, 13, 31, and 32 of patent No. US 12246382 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are effectively obvious variants of one another. The application claims are broader in at least one aspect and also recite additional features not claimed in the patent claims. Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the patent claims and the application claims highlights what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims. Goodman- Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. See 112(f) section herein for the interpretations the nonce terms of the instant application. Patent US 12246382 B2 Instant Application 11. An additive manufacturing apparatus that performs an additive manufacturing process by supplying a fabrication material to a working position, melting the fabrication material, and depositing a fabrication material solidified after melting at the working position, while moving the working position of a workpiece, and forms a manufactured product by repeating the additive manufacturing process, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a height measurement circuit to perform measurement of a height of the manufactured product having already been formed on the workpiece at a measurement position during the additive manufacturing process, and output a measurement result representing a result of the measurement; and a controller to control a machining condition to be used when new deposition is made at the measurement position, in accordance with the measurement result, wherein the measurement position is moved according to movement of the working position and leads or trails the working position as the working position is moved, the measurement position being a position where the fabrication material has solidified, wherein the height measurement circuit includes: a measurement lighting device to apply illumination light for measurement to the measurement position; and a light receiving optical system to receive reflected light of the illumination light for measurement on a light receiving element, the reflected light being reflected from the measurement position, and the height measurement circuit computes the height of the manufactured product formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light reception position of the reflected light on the light receiving element. 21. (New) An additive manufacturing apparatus to form an object by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto a workpiece, the machining material solidified, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a drive stage that changes a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points; a height measurer that measures , while the drive stage is stopped at one of the machining points, a height of the object formed at the machining point; and a controller that controls a machining condition for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result provided by the height measurer. 26. (New) The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the height measurer includes: a measurement illuminator that irradiates a measurement position with measurement illumination light; and a light receiver that receives reflected light that is the measurement illumination light reflected at the measurement position, and the height measurer calculates the height of the object formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light- receiving position of the reflected light on the light receiver. 27. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the height measurer includes a light-receiving optical system that concentrates the reflected light on the light receiver, and the light-receiving optical system is integrated with a machining optical system to focus, on a machining point, machining light for melting the machining material. 12. An additive manufacturing apparatus that performs an additive manufacturing process by supplying a fabrication material to a working position, melting the fabrication material, and depositing a fabrication material solidified after melting at the working position, while moving the working position of a workpiece, and forms a manufactured product by repeating the additive manufacturing process, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a height measurement circuit to output a measurement result representing a height of the manufactured product having already been formed on the workpiece, at a measurement position; and a controller to control a machining condition to be used when new deposition is made at the measurement position, in accordance with the measurement result, wherein the measurement position is moved according to movement of the working position, and is a position where the fabrication material has solidified, the measurement position being situated on a side in a direction in which the working position moves on the workpiece when viewed from the working position, and the measurement position leads or trails the working position in a moving direction of the working position, wherein the height measurement circuit includes: a measurement lighting device to apply illumination light for measurement to the measurement position: and a light receiving optical system to receive reflected light of the illumination light for measurement on a light receiving element, the reflected light being reflected from the measurement position, and the height measurement circuit computes the height of the manufactured product formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light reception position of the reflected light on the light receiving element. 21. An additive manufacturing apparatus to form an object by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto a workpiece, the machining material solidified, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a drive stage that changes a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points; a height measurer that measures , while the drive stage is stopped at one of the machining points, a height of the object formed at the machining point; and a controller that controls a machining condition for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result provided by the height measurer. 26. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the height measurer includes: a measurement illuminator that irradiates a measurement position with measurement illumination light; and a light receiver that receives reflected light that is the measurement illumination light reflected at the measurement position, and the height measurer calculates the height of the object formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light- receiving position of the reflected light on the light receiver. 27. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the height measurer includes a light-receiving optical system that concentrates the reflected light on the light receiver, and the light-receiving optical system is integrated with a machining optical system to focus, on a machining point, machining light for melting the machining material. 31. An additive manufacturing apparatus that performs an additive manufacturing process by supplying a fabrication material to a working position, melting the fabrication material, and depositing a fabrication material solidified after melting at the working position, while moving the working position of a workpiece, and forms a manufactured product by repeating the additive manufacturing process, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a height measurement circuit to perform measurement of a height of the manufactured product having already been formed on the workpiece at a measurement position during the additive manufacturing process, and output a measurement result representing a result of the measurement; and a controller to control a machining condition to be used when new deposition is made at the measurement position, in accordance with the measurement result, wherein the measurement position is moved according to movement of the working position, and is a position where the measurement position is situated away from the working position, and the fabrication material has solidified, the position being out of the range in which the fabrication material is in a molten state. 21. An additive manufacturing apparatus to form an object by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto a workpiece, the machining material solidified, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a drive stage that changes a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points; a height measurer that measures , while the drive stage is stopped at one of the machining points, a height of the object formed at the machining point; and a controller that controls a machining condition for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result provided by the height measurer. 26. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the height measurer includes: a measurement illuminator that irradiates a measurement position with measurement illumination light; and a light receiver that receives reflected light that is the measurement illumination light reflected at the measurement position, and the height measurer calculates the height of the object formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light- receiving position of the reflected light on the light receiver. 27. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the height measurer includes a light-receiving optical system that concentrates the reflected light on the light receiver, and the light-receiving optical system is integrated with a machining optical system to focus, on a machining point, machining light for melting the machining material. 32. An additive manufacturing apparatus that performs an additive manufacturing process by supplying a fabrication material to a working position, melting the fabrication material, and depositing a fabrication material solidified after melting at the working position, while moving the working position of a workpiece, and forms a manufactured product by repeating the additive manufacturing process, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a height measurement circuit to output a measurement result representing a height of the manufactured product having already been formed on the workpiece, at a measurement position; and a controller to control a machining condition to be used when new deposition is made at the measurement position, in accordance with the measurement result, wherein the measurement position is moved according to movement of the working position, and is a position where the measurement position is situated away from the working position, and the fabrication material has solidified, the position being out of the range in which the fabrication material is in a molten state, the measurement position being situated on a side in a direction in which the working position moves on the workpiece when viewed from the working position. 21. An additive manufacturing apparatus to form an object by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto a workpiece, the machining material solidified, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a drive stage that changes a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points; a height measurer that measures , while the drive stage is stopped at one of the machining points, a height of the object formed at the machining point; and a controller that controls a machining condition for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result provided by the height measurer. 26. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the height measurer includes: a measurement illuminator that irradiates a measurement position with measurement illumination light; and a light receiver that receives reflected light that is the measurement illumination light reflected at the measurement position, and the height measurer calculates the height of the object formed on the workpiece on the basis of a light- receiving position of the reflected light on the light receiver. 27. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the height measurer includes a light-receiving optical system that concentrates the reflected light on the light receiver, and the light-receiving optical system is integrated with a machining optical system to focus, on a machining point, machining light for melting the machining material. Thus, it is apparent that the more specific US 12246382 B2 claim 11, 12, 13, 31, and 32 encompass application claim 21, 26, and 27, respectively. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since application claims 21, 26, and 27 are anticipated by US 12246382 B2 claims 11, 12, 13, 31, and 32, respectively, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then patent claim 21, 26, and 27 are obvious over US 12246382 B2 claims 11, 12, 13, 31, and 32. With respect to the additional features recited in the application claims, the inclusion of a drive stage to change a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points is an obvious improvement in view of WO2018178387A1 Bautze . Bautze teaches the use of a drive stage to change a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points (“at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position). Since the US 12246382 B2 claims 11, 12, 13, 31, and 32 recites the use of wherein the measurement position is moved according to movement of the working position, and is a position where the measurement position is situated away from the working position , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of US 12246382 B2 with a drive stage to perform the act of changing a processing position. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ drive stage ” in claims 1 is being interpreted as item 6 which are per par. 63 is a movable stage in the X, Y, and Z directions. “ height measurer ” in claims 21, 26, and 36 is being interpreted as item which are per par. 66 is the measurement illumination unit 8 , the light-receiving optical system, and the calculation unit 50 “ light-receiving optical system ” in claims 27 is being interpreted as item light receiver 16 which are per par. 78 is an area camera or the like equipped with a light-receiving element such as a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor. “ a machining optical system to focus ” in claims 30 is being interpreted per par. 73 is the light-projecting lens 11 , the beam splitter 12 , and the objective lens 13. “ a controller to control ” in claims 21, 22, and 31-36 is being interpreted as item control unit 51 which are per par. 68 and 69 is a control circuit using a CPU Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2018178387A1 Bautze . Regarding claim 21 , Limitations such as “stop at a plurality of machining points” and “while the drive stage is stopped’” are taken as statements of intended use/function. As the prior art of Bautze teaches a controller which can control the location and timing of the drive stage and measurer it is considered to have the structure capable of performing this function/use. This is sufficient for a finding of anticipation for a product claim, see MPEP §2114. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Bautze teaches: An additive manufacturing apparatus (Figs. 1 and 10 show laser apparatus 110, focusing optics 120, interferometer 140, and controller 1050) to form an object by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material (“the component is preferably manufactured layer by layer by applying several layers one after the other”, [0029] while [33] teaches cladding which is known in the art to be an additive manufacturing technology where a repetitive process of melting and depositing material is performed) and adding, onto a workpiece (Fig. 2, workpiece 10 , [0062]) , the machining material solidified ( Fig. 1, “weld bead or component 1020 ”, [0077]) , the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a drive stage that changes a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stop at a plurality of machining points (“at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position) ; a height measurer that measures (Figs. 1 and 10 show laser apparatus 110, focusing optics 120, interferometer 140, and controller 1050 and Fig. 2, interferometer unit, [0056], Figs. 3A-3B, optical measuring beam 42 , [0063], Fig. 10, coherence tomograph 1097 , [0079]; “the reflections are coupled out and compared interferometrically with the measuring light”, [0079]; Fig. 2, interferometer 140 , [0056]; The coherence tomograph 1097 may use optics of interferometer 140 for measurement, “Reflections of the measuring light 2100 of the light source 2110 occurring during laser cladding return to the beam path 2115 in the process head 1090.”, [0079], Figs. 3A-3B, optical measuring beam 42 , [0063], “interferometer unit is configured to use the optical measuring beam, which may be a laser beam, to measure a distance”, [0056] , while the drive stage is stopped at one of the machining points (Fig. 11, “the distance of the nozzle 1080 of the process head 1090 from the component 1020 ”, [0079] and Figs. 9A-9D, “a position” of the “optical measuring beam 142 ”, [0076]) , a height of the object formed at the machining point ( Figs. 9A-9D, weld beam 12 , “bead produced during the process (also referred to as component)”, [0076], [0021]) ; and a controller that controls ( “a controller”, [0060]) a machining condition (“a processing speed, a laser power, a laser focus, and/or operating parameters of the feeding device, such as a powder flow or a wire feed, can be controlled”, [0060]) for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result provided by the height measurer (“From the distance thus obtained, the actual height 1096 of the layer deposited by laser welding is obtained”, [0082], “the optical measuring beam 142 is guided in a circle around the processing point or the laser beam 112 , so that measurements are taken (sequentially) in the pre- and post-run”, [0076]; “the device 100 can be movable along a processing direction 20 ”, [0052]; While processing, the device 100 can move along a processing direction during a run and cross a pre-run location where the measurement position previously had been.) in accordance with the measurement result (“process control and/or process guidance can be performed based on the distance measured by the interferometer”, [0060]). Regarding claim 23 , Bautze teaches: The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above) , wherein the controller causes the object to be formed by repeating: a first operation of measuring a height of the object formed at a first machining point ( Figs. 9A-9D, weld beam 12 , “bead produced during the process (also referred to as component)”, [0021], [0064], [0076], [0081-0083]) ; a second operation of melting the machining material supplied to the first machining point while controlling the machining condition on the basis of the measured height of the object at the first machining point, the second operation being executed after the first operation ( [0081-0086] teaches cladding as containing a melting operation while CCD camera monitors the parameters of melt pool 2140 and determines the height) ; and a third operation of moving a supply position of the machining material from the first machining point to a second machining point that is a machining point next to the first machining point, the third operation being executed after the second operation (Figs. 9A-9D, “at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position and “From the distance thus obtained, the actual height 1096 of the layer deposited by laser welding is obtained”, [0082], “the optical measuring beam 142 is guided in a circle around the processing point or the laser beam 112 , so that measurements are taken (sequentially) in the pre- and post-run”, [0076]; “the device 100 can be movable along a processing direction 20 ”, [0052]; While processing, the device 100 can move along a processing direction during a run and cross a pre-run location where the measurement position previously had been.) in accordance with the measurement result (“process control and/or process guidance can be performed based on the distance measured by the interferometer”, [0060]) . It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Regarding claim 24 , Bautze teaches: The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 23 (as discussed above) , wherein movement from the first machining point to the second machining point involves movement in a direction orthogonal to a height direction of the object (fig. 1 and [0052] teach a processing direction 20 which is orthogonal to a height direction because the machining direction is in a horizontal direction, “While processing, the device 100 can move along a processing direction during a run and cross a pre-run location where the measurement position previously had been.) in accordance with the measurement result (“process control and/or process guidance can be performed based on the distance measured by the interferometer”, [0060] and claim 2) . It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Regarding claim 25 , Bautze teaches: The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above) , wherein at least a part of the object is created using a bead that is formed from the machining material melted at a machining point (claim 2 [0021] [0024] [0055] teach weld bead 12 which is anticipated to be a melted area, and [0057] teaches build-up weld bead) . It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Regarding claim 26 , Bautze teaches: The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above) , wherein the height measurer includes: a measurement illuminator (Fig. 2, interferometer unit, [0056]) to irradiate a measurement position with measurement illumination light (Figs. 3A-3B, optical measuring beam 42 , [0063]) ; and a light receiver that receives (Fig. 10, coherence tomograph 1097 , [0079]; “the reflections are coupled out and compared interferometrically with the measuring light”, [0079]; Fig. 2, interferometer 140 , [0056]; The coherence tomograph 1097 may use optics of interferometer 140 for measurement.) reflected light that is the measurement illumination light (“Reflections of the measuring light 2100 of the light source 2110 occurring during laser cladding return to the beam path 2115 in the process head 1090.”, [0079], “interferometer unit is configured to use the optical measuring beam, which may be a laser beam, to measure a distance”, [0056]) reflected at the measurement position (Figs. 9A-9D, “a position” of the “optical measuring beam 142 ”, [0076]; “a reference point defined by the interferometer 140 ”, [0056]); and calculation circuitry (Fig. 10, controller 1050 , [0079]) , and the height measurer calculates the height of the object (Figs. 9A-9D, weld beam 12 , “bead produced during the process (also referred to as component)”, [0076], [0021]) formed on the workpiece ( Fig. 2, workpiece 10 , [0062]) on the basis of a light- receiving position of the reflected light on the light receive (Fig. 10, controller 1050 , [0079], Fig. 11, “the distance of the nozzle 1080 of the process head 1090 from the component 1020 ”, [0079]) . It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Regarding claim 27 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26 (as discussed above) , wherein the height measurer includes a light-receiving optical system that concentrates the reflected light on the light receiver (Bautze; Fig. 10, coherence tomograph 1097 , [0079]; “the reflections are coupled out and compared interferometrically with the measuring light”, [0079]; Fig. 2, interferometer 140 , [0056]; The coherence tomograph 1097 may use optics of interferometer 140 for measurement, interferometer 170 fig. 7) , and the light-receiving optical system is integrated with a machining optical system (figs. 1, 2, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a, and particular fig. 7, 11, and 12) to focus, on a machining point, machining light for melting the machining material (melt pool 14) . Regarding claim 30 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above) , comprising a machining optical system that focuses (focusing optics 120) , on a machining point, machining light for melting the machining material ([0056] teaches focusing laser beam 112 using focusing optics 120 where laser beam 112 is the machining light as taught in [0055]) . Regarding claim 36 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26 (as discussed above) and teaches wherein the controller (Bautze; “a controller”, [0060]) changes a height of the measurement illuminator relative to the workpiece (“at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position.) , and the height measurer measures the height of the object formed at the machining point on the basis of the light-receiving position obtained while the height of the measurement illuminator relative to the workpiece is changed (“Reflections of the measuring light 2100 of the light source 2110 occurring during laser cladding return to the beam path 2115 in the process head 1090.”, [0079]; Embodiment including measuring light 2100 “that may be combined with other embodiments” [0057] can be included in embodiment with optical measuring beam 142.) . Regarding claim 37 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26 (as discussed above) , wherein an optical axis of the measurement illumination light is parallel with an optical axis of machining light ([0059]) . Regarding claim 38 , Bautze teaches, An additive manufacturing method for forming an object on a workpiece by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto the workpiece (“the component is preferably manufactured layer by layer by applying several layers one after the other”, [0029] while [33] teaches cladding which is known in the art to be an additive manufacturing technology where a repetitive process of melting and depositing material is performed) , the machining material solidified ( Fig. 1, “weld bead or component 1020 ”, [0077]) , the additive manufacturing method comprising: changing a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining, and stopping at a plurality of machining points (“at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position) ; stopping at one of the machining points, measuring a height of the object formed at the machining point while stopped (Figs. 1 and 10 show laser apparatus 110, focusing optics 120, interferometer 140, and controller 1050 and Fig. 2, interferometer unit, [0056], Figs. 3A-3B, optical measuring beam 42 , [0063], Fig. 10, coherence tomograph 1097 , [0079]; “the reflections are coupled out and compared interferometrically with the measuring light”, [0079]; Fig. 2, interferometer 140 , [0056]; The coherence tomograph 1097 may use optics of interferometer 140 for measurement, “Reflections of the measuring light 2100 of the light source 2110 occurring during laser cladding return to the beam path 2115 in the process head 1090.”, [0079], Figs. 3A-3B, optical measuring beam 42 , [0063], “interferometer unit is configured to use the optical measuring beam, which may be a laser beam, to measure a distance”, [0056, Figs. 9A-9D, weld beam 12 , “bead produced during the process (also referred to as component)”, [0076], [0021] teach when the stop points) ; and controlling a machining condition (“a processing speed, a laser power, a laser focus, and/or operating parameters of the feeding device, such as a powder flow or a wire feed, can be controlled”, [0060]) for adding the machining material to the machining point on a basis of a measurement result of the height of the object formed (“From the distance thus obtained, the actual height 1096 of the layer deposited by laser welding is obtained”, [0082], “the optical measuring beam 142 is guided in a circle around the processing point or the laser beam 112 , so that measurements are taken (sequentially) in the pre- and post-run”, [0076]; “the device 100 can be movable along a processing direction 20 ”, [0052]; While processing, the device 100 can move along a processing direction during a run and cross a pre-run location where the measurement position previously had been.) in accordance with the measurement result (“process control and/or process guidance can be performed based on the distance measured by the interferometer”, [0060]) . Regarding claim 39 , Bautze teaches, A non-transitory storage medium ( “a controller”, [0060]) to store an additive manufacturing program for causing a computer to perform an additive manufacturing process of forming an object on a workpiece by repeating additive machining of melting a machining material and adding, onto the workpiece, the additive manufacturing program, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to perform the machining material solidified ( Fig. 1, “weld bead or component 1020 ”, [0077]) ( (“the component is preferably manufactured layer by layer by applying several layers one after the other”, [0029] while [33] teaches cladding which is known in the art to be an additive manufacturing technology where a repetitive process of melting and depositing material is performed); The preamble is not a limitation on the claims if it merely states the purpose or intended use, and the remainder of the claim completely defines invention independent of preamble. On the other hand, if claims cannot be read independently of preamble, and preamble must be read to give meaning to claim or is essential to point out the invention, it constitutes a claim limitation. Stewart-Warner Corp v. City of Pontiac, Mich. 219 USPQ 1162; Marston v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc. 148 USPQ 25; and Kropa v. Robie and Mahlman, 88 USPQ 478. The body of the claim can be executed using a materiality different apparatus including a manual operation or cpu) , the additive manufacturing process comprising : changing a positional relationship between the workpiece and a machining head that executes the additive machining and stopping at a plurality of machining points (“at least one optical measuring beam may be dynamically, i.e. be movable, provided with respect to the laser beam”, [0009]; “device 100 may be movable along a machining direction 20”, [0052]; Laser beam 112 is part of device 100 and may be moved, measuring beam 142 is moved with respect to moving beam 112 which is directed at a processing position) ; stopping at one of the machining points, measuring a height of the object formed at the machining position on the workpiece while stopped (Figs. 1 and 10 show laser apparatus 110, focusing optics 120, interferometer 140, and controller 1050 and Fig. 2, interferometer unit, [0056], Figs. 3A-3B, optical measuring beam 42 , [0063], Fig. 10, coherence tomograph 1097 , [0079]; “the reflections are coupled out and compared interferometrically with the measuring light”, [0079]; Fig. 2, interferometer 140 , [0056]; The coherence tomograph 1097 may use optics of interferometer 140 for measurement, “Reflections of the measuring light 2100 of the light source 2110 occurring during laser cladding return to the beam path 2115 in the process head 1090.”, [0079], Figs. 3A-3B, optical measuring beam 42 , [0063], “interferometer unit is configured to use the optical measuring beam, which may be a laser beam, to measure a distance”, [0056, Figs. 9A-9D, weld beam 12 , “bead produced during the process (also referred to as component)”, [0076], [0021] teach when the stop points) ; and controlling a machining condition (“a processing speed, a laser power, a laser focus, and/or operating parameters of the feeding device, such as a powder flow or a wire feed, can be controlled”, [0060]) for adding the machining material to the machining position on a basis of a measurement result of the height of the object formed (“From the distance thus obtained, the actual height 1096 of the layer deposited by laser welding is obtained”, [0082], “the optical measuring beam 142 is guided in a circle around the processing point or the laser beam 112 , so that measurements are taken (sequentially) in the pre- and post-run”, [0076]; “the device 100 can be movable along a processing direction 20 ”, [0052]; While processing, the device 100 can move along a processing direction during a run and cross a pre-run location where the measurement position previously had been.) in accordance with the measurement result (“process control and/or process guidance can be performed based on the distance measured by the interferometer”, [0060]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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) 22, 31, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018178387A1 Bautze in view of 20150108096 Daniel . Regarding claim 22 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above). The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the controller controls the machining condition such that the machining material to be added to the machining point has a height equal to a difference between a target height and the measurement result . Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Daniel teaches A system and method to correct for height error during a robotic welding additive manufacturing process (abstract) and further teaches wherein the controller controls the machining condition such that the machining material to be added to the machining point has a height equal to a difference between a target height and the measurement result (maintaining an “expected or desired height” [0050] as “when the average CTWD for the current weld layer is shorter than expected, this may be an indication that the resultant current weld layer is too high (e.g., too much weld material was deposited, overshooting the designated height for this layer). Therefore, the weld duration and/or the WFS for the next weld operation can be decreased to deposit less weld material for the next weld layer to compensate for the current weld layer.”, [0064] and “the weld duration and the wire feed speed were each increased by determined amounts to compensate for the height deficiency of layer N.”, [0068]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the controller of Bautze with the change machining conditions in accordance with the teachings of Daniel to maintain an expected or desired height” [ Daniel 0050] because this combination renders obvious any algorithmic function that could be utilized, including the specific algorithm claimed, to ensure a stable additive manufacturing process. Regarding claim 31 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above) and teaches the controller (Bautze; “a controller”, [0060])… the processing material (Bautze; Fig. 1, feed material, [0055]). The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the controller reduces an amount of supply of the machining material to a machining point when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height, and increases the amount of supply when the measurement result is lower than the target height . Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Daniel teaches A system and method to correct for height error during a robotic welding additive manufacturing process (abstract) and further teaches wherein the controller (controller 130 per [0057] to [0061] is taught to control the machining operation) reduces an amount of supply of the machining material to a machining point ((“when the average CTWD for the current weld layer is shorter than expected, this may be an indication that the resultant current weld layer is too high (e.g., too much weld material was deposited, overshooting the designated height for this layer). Therefore, the weld duration and/or the WFS for the next weld operation can be decreased to deposit less weld material for the next weld layer to compensate for the current weld layer.”, [0064])) when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height (“expected or desired height” [0050]) , and increases the amount of supply when the measurement result is lower than the target height (“the weld duration and the wire feed speed were each increased by determined amounts to compensate for the height deficiency of layer N.”, [0068]; More weld material was deposited.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Bautze with the teachings of Daniel for the purpose to integrate the means for adjusting a feed supply based off the height of a build object into a controller. By doing so, one would be able to minimize errors in an overall height of a build object and continue welding operations by allowing the deposition for one weld layer to compensate for another, as identified by Daniel ([0064]). Regarding claim 34 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above). The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the controller reduces a number of times a deposit is created at the machining point when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height, and increases the number of times a deposit is created at the machining point when the measurement result is lower than the target height . Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Daniel teaches adjusting a wire feed speed to adjust the height of a build object in accordance with target values and further teaches wherein the controller reduces a number of times a deposit is created at the machining point ((“when the average CTWD for the current weld layer is shorter than expected, this may be an indication that the resultant current weld layer is too high (e.g., too much weld material was deposited, overshooting the designated height for this layer). Therefore, the weld duration and/or the WFS for the next weld operation can be decreased to deposit less weld material for the next weld layer to compensate for the current weld layer.”, [0064])) when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height (“expected or desired height” [0050]) that is a preset height of a stacked object (Fig. 4A-B, workpiece part 22, [0049]) , and increases the number of times a deposit is created at the machining point when the measurement result is lower than the target height (“the weld duration and the wire feed speed were each increased by determined amounts to compensate for the height deficiency of layer N.”, [0068]; More weld material was deposited.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Bautze with the teachings of Daniel for the advantage to minimize errors in an overall height of a build object and continue welding operations by allowing the deposition for one weld layer to compensate for another, as identified by Daniel ([0064]). Regarding claim 35 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 21 (as discussed above). The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the controller causes a height of an end of the machining material to increase in accordance with a predetermined target height, and the controller causes an amount of increase in the height of the end before melting to increase when the measurement result is higher than the target height, and causes the amount of increase in the height of the end before melting when the measurement result is lower than the target height. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Daniel teaches wherein the controller causes a height of an end of the machining material to increase in accordance with a predetermined target height, and the controller causes an amount of increase in the height of the end before melting to increase when the measurement result is higher than the target height, and causes the amount of increase in the height of the end before melting when the measurement result is lower than the target height ([0062 to 0063]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Bautze with the teachings of Daniel for advantage that the weld duration and/or the WFS for the next weld operation can be increased to deposit more weld material for the next weld layer to compensate for the short height of the current weld layer ( Daniel [0063]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018178387A1 Bautze in view of US20100123904A1 Yamakawa . Regarding claim 28 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26 (as discussed above) , The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the measurement position is within a field of view of a light-receiving element of the light receiver . Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Yamakawa teaches a sensor device for measuring displacement, length, angle, and the like of various measuring target objects is conventionally known [ Yamakawa 0005] and also teaches wherein the measurement position is within a field of view (Yamakawa; “An "irradiation region" in the following description is defined as the entire range (entire range that can be imaged with the two-dimensional imaging element) where the sectional contour image of the light projection beam 53 exists at the surface 5A of the measuring target object 5.”, [0075]; The measurement position on a target object would be within a field of view when it falls in the “irradiation region”) of a light-receiving element of the light receiver (Fig. 5a, “light receiving portion 203 includes a two-dimensional imaging element (photodiode array, CCD, CMOS imaging element, etc.)”, [0069]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the path of the optical measurement beam 142 of Bautze with the teachings of Yamakawa for the purpose of for receiving the reflected light of the line beam and acquiring the image of the received light ([0069]). Regarding claim 29 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26 (as discussed above). The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the measurement illumination light is a line beam emitted linearly . Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Yamakawa teaches wherein the measurement illumination light is a line beam (Yamakawa; [0008]; Fig. 1, line beam L1, [0057]; Fig. 8, “line beam having a linear cross-section”, [0008]) emitted linearly (a laser beam shape having a linear cross section is anticipated to be emitted linearly by definition and per Fig. 8, “line beam having a linear cross-section”, [0008]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the path of the optical measurement beam 142 of Bautze with the teachings of Yamakawa for the advantage of “The light receiving portion receives a reflected light of the line beam reflected at the surface of the measuring target object from a direction in which a distribution of the position of the reflected light image obtained in correspondence to the displacement of the surface of the measuring target object changes for a distribution of the beam in a line direction at the surface of the measuring target object” ([0016]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018178387A1 Bautze in view of US20040251242A1 Suh . Regarding claim 32 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26 (as discussed above) and teaches the controller (Bautze; “a controller”, [0060]). The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the controller reduces an output of machining light for melting the machining material when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height, and increases the output of the machining light when the measurement result is lower than the target height . Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Suh teaches wherein the controller reduces an output of machining light (laser power P, [0078]) for melting the machining material when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height (“a laser beam of an output less than a normal laser output by P-P.sub.t is allowed to be irradiated on the specimen if the height H of the molten pool is greater than the target value (target height) H.sub.t of the cladding layer”, [0079]) , and increases the output of the machining light when the measurement result is lower than the target height (“a laser beam of an output greater than a normal laser output by P-P.sub.t is allowed to be irradiated on the specimen if the height H of the molten pool is less than the target value (target height) H.sub.t of the cladding layer”, [0079]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Bautze with the teachings of Suh because Suh teaches adjusting a laser output power to adjust the height of a build object in accordance with target values. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to integrate the means for adjusting a laser power to achieve a target height of a build object into a controller. By doing so, one could freely adjust the height of the cladding layer through the real-time control of the laser power, as identified by Suh ([0078]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018178387A1 Bautze in view of US 6122564 A Koch . Regarding claim 33 , Bautze teaches, The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26 (as discussed above) and teaches the controller (Bautze; “a controller”, [0060]). The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bautze does not teach: wherein the controller reduces an emission time of machining light for melting the machining material when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height, and increases the emission time of the machining light when the measurement result is lower than the target height . wherein the controller reduces an emission time of machining light for melting the machining material when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height, and increases the emission time of the machining light when the measurement result is lower than the target height . Koch teaches a laser cladding apparatus with closed loop feedback on the height of the deposited metal in each pass (column 7 lines 54 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 3). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of achieving a uniform cladding operation ( Koch column 4 lines 59 to 67 and column 5 lines 1 to 13) There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Koch teaching that control laser beam and material feed parameters to achieve a uniform cladding operation (column 7 lines 54 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 3). The results would have been predictable, since Koch teaches: wherein the controller reduces an emission time of machining light for melting the machining material when the measurement result is higher than a predetermined target height, and increases the emission time of the machining light when the measurement result is lower than the target height as a closed loop feedback system that adjusts voltage supply to the laser, controlling laser power, and finally adjusting laser duration incident on the workpiece substrate because the feedback controller tells the laser that if the workpiece is going off dimension, then the duration of "beam on" time for each pulse is to be reduced ( Koch column 7 lines 54 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions of decreasing a laser on time with a reasonable expectation of success to provide closed loop feedback of the operation because…automated control and adjustment of the invention are critical since manual adjustments are not effective ( Koch column 8 lines 1 to 3). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday. 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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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. ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT Assistant Examiner Art Unit 3761 /ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 12 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 13 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 14 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 15 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 16 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 17 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 18 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 19 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 20 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 21 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 22 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 23 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 24 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 25 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 26 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 27 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 28 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 29 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 30 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 31 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 32 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 33 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 34 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 35 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 36 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 37 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 38 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 39 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 40 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 41 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 42 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 43 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 44 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 45 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 46 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 47 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 48 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 49 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 50 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 51 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 52 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 53 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 54 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 55 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 56 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 57 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 58 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 59 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 60 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 61 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 62 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 63 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 64 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 65 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 66 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 67 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 68 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 69 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 70 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 71 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 72 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 73 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 74 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 75 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 76 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 77 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 78 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 79 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 80 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 81 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 82 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 83 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 84 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 85 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 86 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 87 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 88 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/623,636 Page 89 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights