DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 02/03/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 74, 80-83, and 85-100 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 82-83, 86-88, 90-92, and 94-100 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 82-83, 86-88, 90-92, 94-95, and 97-99 it is not clear which solidified part is being referenced. Claim 74 recites both a solidified part that has already been solidified by the solidification process and the solidified part, which has been cut away. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the above claims have been interpreted to mean the solidified part that has already been solidified by the solidification process.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 74, 80, 82-83, 85-97, and 99-100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US2006/0208396 of record) hereinafter Abe in view of Potter (US2015/0336331 of record).
Regarding claim 74, Abe teaches:
An apparatus for manufacturing a three dimensional shaped object by repeating a solidification process for irradiating a powder material with an energy beam to melt the powder material and then solidify the molten powder material (Fig 1; [0040]), wherein
the apparatus comprises:
a measurement unit that measures a solidified part that has already been solidified by the solidification process, while the three dimensional shaped object is being manufactured (Fig 13a, 15: image pickup unit 82; [0040, 0044, 0059, 0061-0063]).
a cutting unit that cuts away at least a part of the solidified part based on a measured result of the solidified part by the measurement unit (Fig 1: layer-machining unit 4; [0040, 0044]);, and
a processor that is programmed to control the apparatus ([0052]).
Abe does not teach a processer that is programmed to control the measurement unit to measure the solidified part, which has been cut away, after the cutting unit has cut away at least a part of the solidified part.
In the same field of endeavor regarding 3d printing, Potter teaches a processer that is programmed to control a measurement unit to measure a solidified part, which has been cut away, after a cutting unit has cut away at least a part of the solidified part for the motivation of creating to create a three-dimensional virtual model of the external and internal structure of the solidified part which has been cut away ([0067, 0075, 0086, 0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor as taught by Abe to control the measurement unit as taught by Potter in order to create a three-dimensional virtual model of the external and internal structure of the solidified part which has been cut away.
Regarding claim 80, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 74.
Abe further teaches an additive manufacturing chamber that is a working chamber for performing the solidification process (Fig 1: chamber 5), wherein the measurement unit and the cutting unit are provided in the additive manufacturing chamber (Fig 1; [0040, 0044]).
Regarding claim 82, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 74.
Abe further teaches wherein the cutting unit cuts away at least a part of the solidified part based on the measured result while the three dimensional shape object is being manufactured (Fig 15: [0061-0063]).
Regarding claim 83, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 74.
Abe does not explicitly recite wherein the cutting unit cuts away at least a part of the solidified part based on the measured result after the three dimensional shape object has been manufactured.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. The examiner notes that the functional limitations above are met if step S14 is performed on the last layer of the formed object. Therefore the prior art apparatus is capable of performing the claimed functions. Furthermore, since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 85, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 74.
Abe further teaches wherein the solidification process includes a process for irradiating the blown powder material with the energy beam to melt the powder material and then solidifying the molten powder material (Fig 15: step S12; [0062]).
Regarding claim 86, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 74.
Abe further teaches wherein the measurement unit includes a shape measurement device that measures a shape of the solidified part to generate shape data of the solidified part, and the measured result includes the shape data generated by the shape measurement device (Fig 13a, 15: image pickup unit 82; [0040, 0059, 0061-0063]).
Regarding claim 87, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 74.
Potter further teaches wherein the measurement unit includes an internal measurement device that acquires internal data of the solidified part, and the measured result includes the internal data acquired by the internal measurement device ([0004, 0007, 0090-0093]).
Regarding claim 88, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 87.
Potter further reaches wherein the internal measurement device includes an X-ray inspection apparatus that irradiates the solidified part with X-rays to acquire the internal data of the solidified part ([0090-0093]).
Regarding claim 89, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 74.
Abe further teaches a control device ([0044, 0052]).
Regarding claim 90, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the control device determines based on the measured result whether or not the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part ([0044, 0052]).
Regarding claim 91, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the control device determines based on a state of at least one of an error and a defect, which is detected based on the measured result, whether or not the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part ([0044, 0052]).
Regarding claim 92, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the measurement unit performs a plurality of measurements in a cycle including the solidification process, and the control device determines based a result of each of the plurality of measurements performed in the cycle whether or not the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part (Fig 15; [0044]).
Regarding claim 93, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the control device determines based on the measured result whether the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part or a manufacturing condition of the three dimensional shaped object used by the solidification process should be changed (Fig 15; [0044, 0052]; the manufacturing condition is the nth layer being formed).
Regarding claim 94, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the control device determines based on a state of at least one of an error and a defect, which is detected based on the measured result, whether the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part or a manufacturing condition of the three dimensional shaped object used by the solidification process should be changed (Fig 15; [0044, 0052]; the manufacturing condition is the nth layer being formed).
Regarding claim 95, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the measurement unit performs a plurality of measurements in a first cycle including the solidification process, and the control device determines based on a result of each of the plurality of measurements performed in the first cycle whether the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part or a manufacturing condition of the three dimensional shaped object used by the solidification process should be changed (Fig 15; [0044, 0052, 0060]; abnormally sintered portion-detecting unit measures both presence of an abnormally sintered layer and the position of the abnormality; the manufacturing condition is the nth layer being formed).
Regarding claim 96, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein in a case where the control device determines that the manufacturing condition should be changed, the measurement unit performs a plurality of measurements in a second cycle that is different from the first cycle, while the three dimensional shape object is being manufactured based on the changed manufacturing condition (Fig 15; [0044, 0052, 0060]; abnormally sintered portion-detecting unit measures both presence of an abnormally sintered layer and the position of the abnormality; the manufacturing condition is the nth layer being formed).
Regarding claim 97, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the control device determines based on the measured result whether the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part or a manufacturing of the three dimensional shaped object should be terminated ([0052]; termination of the manufacturing is implied because a finished object is produced by the process and layers are no longer formed).
Regarding claim 99, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 91.
Abe further teaches wherein the error includes a difference between the solidified part solidified by the solidification process and a part that is indicated by design information of the three dimensional shaped object and that corresponds to the solidified part ([0059-0060]).
Regarding claim 100, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 91.
Potter further teaches wherein the defect includes a defect hole ([0052]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding 3d printing, Potter teaches detecting a defect hole for the motivation of generating a toolpath to repair the defect ([0052]).
Claim(s) 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Potter as applied to claim 80 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (US2010/0006228) hereinafter Abe '228.
Regarding claim 81, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 80.
Abe further teaches wherein the cutting unit is configured to move in the additive manufacturing chamber (Fig 1; [0040, 0043]).
Abe in view of Potter does not teach the cutting unit is configured to move three-dimensionally.
However, Abe teaches that the cutting unit is configured to move in the xy directions ([0043]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding 3d printing, Abe ‘228 teaches a milling unit that is configured to move in the z direction for the motivation of fabricating an object with high precision ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting unit as taught by Abe in view of Potter to also move in the z direction as taught by Abe ‘228 in order to fabricate an object with high precision.
Claim(s) 98 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Potter as applied to claim 89 above, and further in view of Reese (US 2016/0236414 of record).
Regarding claim 98, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 89.
Abe further teaches wherein the control device determines that the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part ([0044, 0052]).
Abe in view of Potter does not teach wherein the control device: determines based on the measured result whether or not at least one of the error and the defect can be corrected; determines that the cutting unit should cut away at least a part of the solidified part in a case where it is determined that at least one of the error and the defect can be corrected; and determines that the manufacturing of the three dimensional shaped object should be terminated in a case where it is determined that at least one of the error and the defect cannot be corrected.
In the same field of endeavor regarding 3d printing, Reese teaches detecting defects and correcting or stopping the process if the defect is identified as catastrophic for the motivation of providing real time monitoring, detecting and correcting ([0001, 0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device as taught by Abe in view of Potter with the error processing as taught by Reese in order to provide real time monitoring, detecting and correcting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741