DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/006140, filed on 01/19/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/025684, filed on 07/07/2021, which claims benefit of JP2020-123860, filed on 07/20/2020.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/20/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of JP2020-123860 application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, III, IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 20-22 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "17" and "19" have both been used to designate welding robot. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract cites "means". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim21 is 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 21 depends on claim 2 and recites “the mathematical model”. Claim 2 recites first and second mathematical model. It is not clear if claim 21 is referring to first or second model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: With respect to claim 2, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 2 claims a method and falls within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, prong one: Claim 2 recites “generating by a processor….creating by a processor…..searching by a processor….presenting by a processor…”. The claim recites mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A, C)). Processor is an additional element.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The preamble of the claim cites that the method is used for building weld beads however, there is no claimed additional element indicating any transformation, MPEP 2106.05(c ), or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment MPEP 2106.05 (e), or to apply the above-identified abstract idea as claimed with, or by use of, a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b).
The claim recites the additional element of “processor” however, this is a generic processor that simply executes the instructions in abstract idea.
Step 2B: Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more because using a generic computer for calculating, searching, and presenting information is merely invoking computers as a tool to perform a process MPEP 2106.05 (f) (2). The abstract idea and additional elements as claimed are so generic that amounts to merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05 (f) (3).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 20-22 recite gathering and analyzing information MPEP 2106.05 (a) (II) to perform the abstract idea on a generic processor. Thus claims 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 20-22 are not patent eligible under35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama et al., US 20200030880 (hereafter Nagahama), and further in view of Takagi et al., US 20220083700 (hereafter Takagi), Zhang et al., US 20220161344 (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 2,
A building plan assistance method for assisting creation of a building plan(Title)
indicating each of a material of a built object, a welding condition of weld beads, and a welding track when the built object is manufactured by additive manufacturing, in a desired shape, (Fig. 3 in Nagahama)
PNG
media_image1.png
473
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Nagahama
….the method comprising: respectively generating, by a processor, a first mathematical model and a second mathematical model, (65b and 65c in Fig. 2. Paragraph [44] teaches “The machine learning apparatus 65 (a) generates a first learning model to a seventh learning model for determining the manufacturing conditions, (b) generates an eighth learning model to a tenth learning model for estimating the shaped article statuses, (c) determines the manufacturing conditions by using the first learning model to the seventh learning model, and (d) estimates the statuses of the shaped article W by using the eighth learning model to the tenth learning model.” )
PNG
media_image2.png
541
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Nagahama
the first mathematical model relating input information to intermediate output information, the input information including items of the material of the built object, the welding condition, and the welding track, (6th learning model in Fig. 7)
the intermediate output information including information regarding a temperature history of the built object when additive manufacturing is performed under conditions indicated by the items of the input information, (6th learning model in Fig. 7)
the second mathematical model relating the intermediate output information to output information including a property value of the built object; (Paragraph [65] teaches “The tenth learning model is configured such that, when the first-stage manufacturing conditions, the second-stage manufacturing conditions, and the first-stage shaped article statuses described above are set as input data, the quality of the second-stage shaped article W2 can be set as output data.”)
creating, by the processor, a database indicating a correspondence between the input information and the output information by using the first mathematical model and the second mathematical model; (Fig. 2)
searching, by the processor, the database to obtain the temperature history, the material of the built object, the welding condition, and the welding track corresponding to a target property value of the built object to be manufactured; (Paragraph [9] teaches “A manufacturing condition determination apparatus for a shaped article to be produced by additive manufacturing according to another aspect of the present invention includes a condition determination unit configured to determine, by using the learning model of the additive manufacturing learning model generation apparatus described above, the manufacturing condition while the shaped article status is set as the input data. Thus, the manufacturing condition of the shaped article can be determined easily.”
Fig. 6 teaches fourth learning model generates a database for welding condition, and fifth learning model generates a database for welding track when quality is set as input.
Fig. 7 teaches 6th learning model generates heat treatment conditions, and seventh learning model generates material when quality is set as input.)
and presenting, by the processor, the obtained material of the built object, welding condition, and welding track corresponding to the target property value, (Paragraph [9] teaches “A manufacturing condition determination apparatus for a shaped article to be produced by additive manufacturing according to another aspect of the present invention includes a condition determination unit configured to determine, by using the learning model of the additive manufacturing learning model generation apparatus described above, the manufacturing condition while the shaped article status is set as the input data. Thus, the manufacturing condition of the shaped article can be determined easily.”
Fig. 6 teaches fourth learning model generates a database for welding condition, and fifth learning model generates a database for welding track when quality is set as input.
Fig. 7 teaches 6th learning model generates heat treatment conditions, and seventh learning model generates material when quality is set as input.)
Primary combination of references is silent about the weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal fed from a welding head, wherein each item of the input information includes a plurality of input subitems that are mutually different, the intermediate output information includes individual intermediate values corresponding to the input subitems, the output information includes a plurality of individual property values corresponding to the individual intermediate values, …..and in the generating of the first mathematical model and the second mathematical model, the input subitems are respectively related to the individual intermediate values by the first mathematical model, and the individual intermediate values are respectively related to the individual property values by the second mathematical model.
Takagi teaches wherein each item of the input information includes a plurality of input subitems that are mutually different, the intermediate output information includes individual intermediate values corresponding to the input subitems, the output information includes a plurality of individual property values corresponding to the individual intermediate values, (Fig. 10 in Takagi.)
PNG
media_image3.png
499
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 in Takagi
and in the generating of the first mathematical model and the second mathematical model, the input subitems are respectively related to the individual intermediate values by the first mathematical model, and the individual intermediate values are respectively related to the individual property values by the second mathematical model. (Fig. 10 in Takagi.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model in Nagahama to include plurality of input subitems and corresponding output as taught in Takagi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A design aid method of aiding in metallic material design by a computer, the design aid method comprising: inputting a desired property value to a database and searching the database for an index indicating metallic microstructure state corresponding to the desired property value and a chemical composition of elements in metal and a production condition corresponding to the index indicating metallic microstructure state, the database being generated using at least one first mathematical model in which input information including a chemical composition of elements in metal and a production condition and intermediate output information including an index indicating metallic microstructure state are associated with each other and at least one second mathematical model in which the intermediate output information and output information including a property value of a metallic material are associated with each other, and storing, in association with input data of each mesh obtained by partitioning an input range corresponding to the input information into a plurality of intervals, intermediate output data of the first mathematical model and output data of the second mathematical model corresponding to the input data; and presenting the chemical composition of elements in metal and the production condition corresponding to the desired property value” as taught in claim 4 in Takagi.
Primary combination of references is silent about the weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal fed from a welding head.
Zhang teaches the weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal fed from a welding head. (Paragraph [3] in Zhang teaches “Wire-Arc Additive Manufacture (WAAM) uses the arc generated by welding machines such as metal inert-gas welding (MIG), Tungsten inert-gas welding (TIG) and plasma welding power supply (PA) as the heat source. Through the addition of metal wires, under the control of program, layers are stacked on the substrate according to the set forming path until the metal parts are nearly net formed.” It is implied that the metal wire is melted and solidified during WAAM.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model in Nagahama to apply it for melting and solidifying filler metal fed from a welding head as taught in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a method “using different welding process parameters in the same welding bead in the a wire-arc additive manufacturing process to obtain a welding bead with synchronous and dynamic changes in profile along with the dynamic changes of the welding process parameters” as taught in abstract in Zhang.
Regarding claim 4,
The building plan assistance method according to claim 2, wherein information regarding the material in the input information includes information regarding a type of the filler metal. (Fig. 3 in Nagahama teaches material of metal powder as input information.
However, Nagahama is silent about filler metal.
Paragraph [3] in Zhang teaches “Wire-Arc Additive Manufacture (WAAM) uses the arc generated by welding machines such as metal inert-gas welding (MIG), Tungsten inert-gas welding (TIG) and plasma welding power supply (PA) as the heat source. Through the addition of metal wires, under the control of program, layers are stacked on the substrate according to the set forming path until the metal parts are nearly net formed.” It is implied that the metal wire is melted and solidified during WAAM.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model in Nagahama to set the material for filler metal as taught in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a method “using different welding process parameters in the same welding bead in the a wire-arc additive manufacturing process to obtain a welding bead with synchronous and dynamic changes in profile along with the dynamic changes of the welding process parameters” as taught in abstract in Zhang.
Regarding claim 6,
The building plan assistance method according to claim 2, wherein information regarding the welding condition in the input information includes information regarding at least one of a welding current, a welding voltage, a travel speed, a width of a pitch between adjacent welding tracks, an interpass time of moving from a specific welding track to another welding track among a plurality of welding tracks, a target position of the welding head, a welding position of the welding head, and a speed of feeding the filler metal when each weld bead is formed, or a combination thereof. (Fig. 3 in Nagahama teaches scanning speed.)
Regarding claim 8,
The building plan assistance method according to claim 4, wherein information regarding the welding condition in the input information includes information regarding at least one of a welding current, a welding voltage, a travel speed, a width of a pitch between adjacent welding tracks, an interpass time of moving from a specific welding track to another welding track among a plurality of welding tracks, a target position of the welding head, a welding position of the welding head, and a speed of feeding the filler metal when each weld bead is formed, or a combination thereof. (Fig. 3 in Nagahama teaches scanning speed.)
Regarding claim 11,
The building plan assistance method according to claim 2, wherein the welding track is a partial welding track corresponding to an element shape obtained by cutting out a part of an entire shape of the built object. (Paragraph [33] in Nagahama teaches “The additive manufacturing apparatus 1 acquires the 3D shape model generated by the 3D shape model generation apparatus 61, and manufactures the first-stage shaped article W1 based on the 3D shape model.” It is implied that in an additive method, each welding track is a partial welding track to an element shape obtained by cutting a part of an entire shape.)
Regarding claim 13,
The building plan assistance method according claim 2, wherein the output information includes information regarding at least one of an index indicating a state of a metal structure, a hardness, and a mechanical strength of the built object. (Paragraph [36] in Nagahama teaches “The inspection apparatus 63 inspects whether the second-stage shaped article W2 satisfies the product quality that is the requirement specification. For example, the inspection apparatus 63 inspects the accuracy of the product shape, the product strength, and the product durability.”)
Regarding claim 20,
The building plan assistance method according to claim 2, wherein information regarding the welding track in the input information includes information regarding at least one of passes forming each weld bead, the number of the passes, an order of forming each weld bead, and a cross-sectional shape of each weld bead. (Fig. 3 in Nagahama teaches scanning speed which corresponds to one of passes forming each weld bead in the instant claim.)
Regarding claim 21,
The building plan assistance method according to claim 2, wherein the mathematical model is a learned model obtained by machine-learning of a relation between the input information and the output information. (Abstract in Nagahama teaches “The additive manufacturing learning model generation apparatus generates a learning model for determining a manufacturing condition or for estimating a shaped article status through machine learning that uses the manufacturing condition and the shaped article status as learning data.”)
Regarding claim 22,
The building plan assistance method according to claim 2, wherein an input range of the input information is restricted to a range limited based on a predetermined condition. (Nagahama is silent about this.
Takagi teaches in paragraph [49] “As the input data range in which the input data meshes are defined, chemical compositions of elements in steel and production conditions that are expected as steel material are taken to be the whole input range. That is, the input data range is limited to a predetermined range based on a predetermined condition such as metallurgical knowledge or evaluation function.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model in Nagahama to restrict the input range based on a predetermined condition as taught in Takagi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it enables the processor to run the models efficiently.
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/006230 (hereafter ‘230) in view of Nagahama as discussed in Table 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Table 1(Differences in bold)
Pending claim 2 (01/19/2023)
Reference claim 2 of ‘230 (01/20/2023)
A building plan assistance method for assisting creation of a building plan indicating each of a material of a built object, a welding condition of weld beads, and a welding track when the
A defect occurrence prediction method for predicting occurrence of a defect when
built object is manufactured by additive manufacturing, in a desired shape the weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal fed from a welding head, the method comprising:
a built object is manufactured by additive manufacturing, in a desired shape, weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal fed from a welding head, the method comprising:
respectively generating, by a processor, a first mathematical model and a second mathematical model, the first mathematical model relating input information to intermediate output information, the input information including items of the material of the built object, the welding condition, and the welding track, the intermediate output information including information regarding a temperature history of the built object when additive manufacturing is performed under conditions indicated by the items of the input information, the second mathematical model relating the intermediate output information to output information including a property value of the built object;
respectively generating, by a processor, a first mathematical model and a second mathematical model, the first mathematical model relating input information to intermediate output information, the input information including items of a material of the built object, a welding condition, and a welding track, the intermediate output information including information regarding a temperature history of the built object when additive manufacturing is performed under conditions indicated by the items of the input information, a feature amount of a shape of a molten pool when each weld bead is formed, and a bead height or bead width of each weld bead, and the second mathematical model relating the intermediate output information to output information including defect information of the built object;
creating, by the processor, a database indicating a correspondence between the input information and the output information by using the first mathematical model and the second mathematical model;
creating, by the processor, a database indicating a correspondence between the input information and the output information by using the first mathematical model and the second mathematical model;
searching, by the processor, the database to obtain the temperature history, the material of the built object, the welding condition, and the welding track corresponding to a target property value of the built object to be manufactured; and
searching, by the processor, the database to obtain the defect information of the built object;
presenting, by the processor, the obtained material of the built object, welding condition, and welding track corresponding to the target property value, wherein each item of the input information includes a plurality of input subitems that are mutually different, the intermediate output information includes individual intermediate values corresponding to the input subitems, the output information includes a plurality of individual property values corresponding to the individual intermediate values, and
presenting, by the processor, the obtained defect information of the built object, wherein each item of the input information includes a plurality of input subitems that are mutually different, the intermediate output information includes individual intermediate values corresponding to the input subitems, the output information includes a plurality of pieces of individual defect information corresponding to the individual intermediate values, and
in the generating of the first mathematical model and the second mathematical model, the input subitems are respectively related to the individual intermediate values by the first mathematical model, and the individual intermediate values are respectively related to the individual property values by the second mathematical model.
in the generating of the first mathematical model and the second mathematical model, the input subitems are respectively related to the individual intermediate values by the first mathematical model, and the individual intermediate values are respectively related to the individual defect information by the second mathematical model.
‘230 is silent about A building plan assistance method for assisting creation of a building plan indicating each of a material of a built object, a welding condition of weld beads, and a welding track, output information including a property value of the built object; searching, by the processor, the database to obtain the temperature history, the material of the built object, the welding condition, and the welding track corresponding to a target property value of the built object to be manufactured; and presenting, by the processor, the obtained material of the built object, welding condition, and welding track corresponding to the target property value.
Nagahama teaches A building plan assistance method for assisting creation of a building plan (Title)
indicating each of a material of a built object, a welding condition of weld beads, and a welding track, output information including a property value of the built object; (Fig. 3 in Nagahama)
searching, by the processor, the database to obtain the temperature history, the material of the built object, the welding condition, and the welding track corresponding to a target property value of the built object to be manufactured; and presenting, by the processor, the obtained material of the built object, welding condition, and welding track corresponding to the target property value. (Paragraph [9] teaches “A manufacturing condition determination apparatus for a shaped article to be produced by additive manufacturing according to another aspect of the present invention includes a condition determination unit configured to determine, by using the learning model of the additive manufacturing learning model generation apparatus described above, the manufacturing condition while the shaped article status is set as the input data. Thus, the manufacturing condition of the shaped article can be determined easily.”
Fig. 6 teaches fourth learning model generates a database for welding condition, and fifth learning model generates a database for welding track when quality is set as input.
Fig. 7 teaches 6th learning model generates heat treatment conditions, and seventh learning model generates material when quality is set as input.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model in ‘230 to include material, welding condition, welding track as input and property value as output, and search and present the values as taught in Nagahama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The additive manufacturing learning model generation apparatus generates a learning model for determining a manufacturing condition or for estimating a shaped article status through machine learning that uses the manufacturing condition and the shaped article status as learning data” as taught in abstract in Nagahama.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 11, 20-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 6, 8, 11, 20-22 respectively of copending Application No. 18/006230 (hereafter ‘230).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761