DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 06/30/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 101-112 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 101-112 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of solidified layers”, “a solidified layer”, “the solidified layer that has been manufactured”, and “a new solidified layer”. The claim is rendered indefinite because:
1) It is not clear if the “a solidified layer”, “the solidified layer that has been manufactured”, and “a new solidified layer” are included in or separate from the “a plurality of solidified layers”.
2) It is not clear which solidified layer is being referenced by “the solidified layer that has been manufactured”
Furthermore, in claim 1, ln 3-4, it is not clear what limitations are imparted by the phrase “by repeating to manufacture a solidified layer, which is layered”. For example, is the solidified layer included in the previously introduced plurality of solidified layers or a separate claim entity? Is the solidified layer itself formed of further sub-layers or is the solidified layer layered with the remaining plurality of solidified layers. In addition, the limitation appears to be grammatically incorrect, further rendering the claim indefinite as to the metes and bounds of the claim.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean the plurality of solidified layers include an initial solidified layer and a new solidified layer that is formed on the initial solidified layer.
Claims 102-105, 107 recite the solidified layer. It is not clear which previously introduced solidified layer is being referenced by the claims.
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) 101, 105, and 108-112 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 101, Abe teaches:
An apparatus comprising:
a manufacturing apparatus that manufactures a three dimensional shaped object in which a plurality of solidified layers are built up together by repeating to manufacture a solidified layer, which is layered, by performing solidification processing upon a material that is positioned in a region set according to a shape of the three dimensional shaped object that is to be manufactured, to supply a new material upon an upper portion of the solidified layer that has been manufactured, to perform the solidification processing upon the new material and thus to manufacture a new solidified layer (Fig 5, 7; [0054-0055]);
a measurement apparatus that measures a portion on an upper surface of the new solidified layer that has been manufactured by the manufacturing apparatus (Fig 5, 7: blade 21, abnormally sintered portion 19; [0044, 0052, 0054]); and
a removal apparatus that removes at least a portion of the new solidified layer based on a measured result by the measurement apparatus (Fig 5, 7: milling head 41; [0043, 0054]),
wherein
the measurement apparatus measures an upper surface of the solidified layer from which at least a portion thereof has been removed by the removal apparatus (Fig 5, 7; [0054]), and
the manufacturing apparatus manufactures a solidified layer on the solidified layer from which at least a portion thereof has been removed, after the measurement apparatus measures the solidified layer from which at least a portion thereof has been removed (Fig 5, 7; [0054-0055]).
Abe does not teach the measurement apparatus measures a concave portion.
However, Abe teaches that abnormalities can be detected using an image pickup unit ([0059-0061]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Potter teaches detection of defects including cavities using x-ray detection and removal of cracks for the motivation of facilitating the detection of very small voids or other defects and repairing of objects such that no cracks are left in the objects ([0007, 0049, 0089-0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus as taught by Abe with the x-ray detection and crack repair as taught by Potter in order to facilitate the detection of very small voids or other defects and repair of objects such that no cracks are left in the object.
Regarding claim 105, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 101.
Abe further teaches wherein the measurement apparatus measures a state of roughness of the surface of the solidified layer (Fig 5; [0052, 0054]).
Regarding claim 108, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 101.
Abe further teaches an actuator that moves the removal apparatus three-dimensionally ([0043]).
Regarding claim 109, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 108.
Abe further teaches wherein the removal apparatus controls the actuator to remove at least a portion of the new solidified layer based on the measured result by the measurement apparatus (Fig 5, 7; [0052, 0054]).
Regarding claim 110, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 101.
Abe further teaches wherein the removal apparatus removes at least a portion of the new solidified layer based on the measured result by the measurement apparatus in a period during which the three-dimensional shaped object is manufactured (Fig 5, 7; [0052, 0054-0055]).
Regarding claim 111, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 101.
Potter further teaches wherein the solidification processing includes: a processing for melting the material by irradiating the supplied material with an energy beam; and a processing for solidifying the melted material ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 112, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 101.
Potter further teaches wherein the concave portion includes a defect hole ([0098]).
Claim(s) 102-104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Potter as applied to claim 101 above, and further in view of Kovacevic et al. (US6995334) hereinafter Kovacevic.
Regarding claim 102, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 101.
Abe further teaches a movable table upon which the layers are formed ([0041]).
Abe in view of Potter does not teach wherein the manufacturing apparatus includes a rotation apparatus that is configured to rotate the solidified layer.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Kovacevic teaches a build platform that can translate in the x, y, and z directions as well as rotate around the vertical and horizontal axes for the motivation of providing a greater degree of movement of the workpiece (Fig 1a: platform 112; col 4, ln 26-36).
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 apparatus as taught by Abe in view of Potter with the rotatable build platform as taught by Kovacevic in order to provide a greater degree of movement of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 103, Abe in view of Potter and Kovacevic teaches the apparatus of claim 102.
Kovacevic further teaches a measurement device (Fig 1a: inspection device 108; col 5, ln 30-45).
Kovacevic further teaches wherein the rotation apparatus rotates the solidified layer with respect to the measurement apparatus (Fig 1a; col 4, ln 26-36).
Regarding claim 104, Abe in view of Potter and Kovacevic teaches the apparatus of claim 103.
Potter further teaches wherein the measurement apparatus includes a detector whose pose is changeable with respect to the solidified layer ([0092]).
Claim(s) 106-107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Potter as applied to claim 101 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (US2010/0006228 of record) hereinafter Abe '228.
Regarding claim 106, Abe in view of Potter teaches the apparatus of claim 101.
Abe further teaches an actuator that moves the removal apparatus ([0043]).
Abe in view of Potter does not teach an actuator that moves the removal apparatus in a vertical direction.
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.
Regarding claim 107, Abe in view of Potter and Abe ‘228 teaches the apparatus of claim 106.
Abe further teaches wherein the actuator moves the removal apparatus on a plane that is along the surface of the solidified layer (Fig 3; [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach measuring a concave portion, for example a defect hole. However, Potter teaches measuring of defects including cavities ([0098]). While Potter teaches measuring defects in a sample layer, such a teaching combined with the teaching of Abe to directly inspect the object itself, it would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the cavity detection as taught by Potter to the direct inspection as taught by Abe and arrive at a form of direct inspection that includes measuring of a defect hole. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights