DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/041186, filed on 02/09/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/027414, filed on 07/21/2021, which claims benefit of JP2020-138613, filed on 08/19/2020.
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 08/19/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of JP2020-138613 application.
Specification
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 Interpretation
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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: step in claim 1, 4, 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 6-10 are 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.
Claims 6-10 recite “wherein in the pre-measurement process, a shape of an inner side of the frame portion, the inner side including the frame portion, is measured”. It is not clear if the limitation is claiming -a shape of an inner side of the frame portion, or the inner side including the frame portion, is measured. It is not clear if the limitation is claiming - a shape of an inner side of the frame portion is measured.
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) 1, 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al., WO 2019098006 (hereafter Yamasaki), and further in view of Narayanan et al., US 20180319097 (hereafter Narayanan).
Regarding claim 1,
A method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object by depositing weld beads obtained by melting and solidifying a filler metal, the method comprising: (Abstract teaches “In this method for manufacturing a layered model, weld beads in which a filler material is melted and solidified are brought adjacent to each other to form a weld bead layer, and subsequent weld bead layers are repeatedly layered and molded on the weld bead layer thus formed.”)
a depositing planning step of creating a depositing plan for depositing the weld beads based on a target shape of the additively-manufactured object; (Page 7, paragraph 8 of the attached machine translation teaches “First, shape data (CAD data etc.) of the layered object is input to the control unit 37 shown in FIG. 1 (S21). The control unit 37 generates, based on the input shape data, the laminated model of the welding bead representing the formation procedure of the layered object and the movement trajectory of the torch 17 in the
same manner as the first formation procedure described above (S22) .”
and a building step of repeatedly depositing the weld beads based on the depositing plan, (Page 7, paragraph 11-12 teaches “the control unit 37 generates a drive program based on the regenerated layered model (S26), executes this drive program, and drives each part such as the welding robot 19 and the power supply device 15 to perform welding. A bead is formed (S27). The above-described process of S27 is repeated until the entire trajectory is completed (S28).”
….and the internal building step comprises: a pre-measurement process of measuring a shape of a base on which the weld bead layer is to be deposited; (Page 5, paragraph 9 teaches “When forming the second layer welding bead 54, the shape detection sensor 23 provided on the tip shaft of the welding robot 19 detects the shape around the position where the welding bead is to be formed next (S15).”)
a deviation amount calculation process of creating a measured profile of the base based on the measured shape of the base, determining a planned profile of the base based on the depositing plan, and calculating a deviation amount of the measured profile with respect to the planned profile; (Page 5, paragraph 11 teaches “the control unit 37 recognizes the shape of one concave portion 66 formed by the three welding beads 54, 53B, 53C already formed based on the shape detection data detected from the shape detection sensor 23 (S16) . Then, the bead size of the new welding bead and the posture of the torch 17 are changed as necessary so as to fill the recess 66 (S17). Next, a new welding bead 54A (see FIG. 7), in which the setting of the bead size and the posture of the torch 17 are appropriately changed, is formed (S18).”)
and a pre-correction process of correcting a welding condition of the second plurality of the weld beads constituting the weld bead layer in the depositing plan in order to reduce the deviation amount when the weld bead layer is deposited on the base. (Page 5, paragraph 11 teaches “the control unit 37 recognizes the shape of one concave portion 66 formed by the three welding beads 54, 53B, 53C already formed based on the shape detection data detected from the shape detection sensor 23 (S16) . Then, the bead size of the new welding bead and the posture of the torch 17 are changed as necessary so as to fill the recess 66 (S17). Next, a new welding bead 54A (see FIG. 7), in which the setting of the bead size and the posture of the torch 17 are appropriately changed, is formed (S18).”)
Primary combination of references is silent about wherein the building step comprises: a frame portion building step of building a frame portion comprising a first plurality of the weld beads; and an internal building step of building an internal building portion in which a weld bead layer including a second plurality of the weld beads formed in parallel in an area surrounded by the frame portion is deposited,
Narayanan teaches wherein the building step comprises: a frame portion building step of building a frame portion comprising a first plurality of the weld beads; (Abstract teaches “The system also includes a controller to operate the system at a first deposition rate to form first resolution contour portions of a layer of the part.”
Paragraph [18] teaches “It is envisioned that system 10 may typically be used to additively manufacture a part, layer-by-layer, by a submerged arc or electroslag welding process, although other welding processes such as, for example, gas metal arc welding (GMAW), flux-cored arc welding (FCAW), and gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) may also be employed.” It is understood that first resolution contour portions are built by first plurality of weld beads.)
and an internal building step of building an internal building portion in which a weld bead layer including a second plurality of the weld beads formed in parallel in an area surrounded by the frame portion is deposited, ( Abstract teaches “The controller also operates the system at a second deposition rate to form second resolution fill portions of the layer of the part.” It is understood that the internal volume of the part is built by second plurality of weld beads. Fig. 1 teaches that weld beads are parallel.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the building steps of frame portion and internal building portion as taught in Narayanan to the method in Yamasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “quality of the manufactured part may be improved by creating skeletons (via a low deposition rate process) and filling the skeletons (via a high deposition rate process) in an iterative manner for each layer of the part (e.g., skeleton+fill followed by a touch-up process using a higher resolution, lower deposition rate process)” as taught in paragraph [3] in Narayanan.
Regarding claim 2,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 1, wherein in the pre-measurement process, the shape of the base is measured by a shape sensor arranged in parallel with a torch configured to melt the filler metal to form the weld bead. (Fig. 1 and page 3, paragraph 5 in Yamasaki teaches “A shape detection sensor 23 for detecting the shape of the material to be the layered object may be provided on the tip axis of the welding robot 19. Various known sensors such as a laser sensor and a CCD / CMOS image sensor can be used as the shape detection sensor 23.”)
Regarding claim 4,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 2, wherein the internal building step includes a real-time correction process, and in the real-time correction process, the shape of the base is measured by the shape sensor, and the second plurality of the weld beads are formed while correcting the welding condition of the second plurality of the weld beads based on the depositing plan in real time based on the measured shape of the base. (Page 5, paragraph 11 in Yamasaki teaches “the control unit 37 recognizes the shape of one concave portion 66 formed by the three welding beads 54, 53B, 53C already formed based on the shape detection data detected from the shape detection sensor 23 (S16) . Then, the bead size of the new welding bead and the posture of the torch 17 are changed as necessary so as to fill the recess 66 (S17). Next, a new welding bead 54A (see FIG. 7), in which the setting of the bead size and the posture of the torch 17 are appropriately changed, is formed (S18).”)
PNG
media_image1.png
491
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Yamasaki
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki, and Narayanan, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 respectively above, and further in view of Kosaka et al., US 6023044 (hereafter Kosaka).
Regarding claim 6,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 1, wherein in the pre-measurement process, a shape of an inner side of the frame portion, the inner side including the frame portion, is measured along the frame portion. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Kosaka teaches in Fig. 1 that laser beam scans part of workpiece A, gap between workpieces, and part of workpiece B. Here the edges of workpieces correspond to the frame, and the gap corresponds to the inner side in the instant claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
367
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Kosaka
Even though Kosaka is silent about a frame and inner side, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of measuring inner side of the frame along the frame portion as taught in Kosaka to the method in Yamasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In a multi-layer welding, weld line and a gap width of workpieces (A, B) to be welded are detected by a laser sensor mounted on a robot, during a welding for a first layer, whereby, a welding torch mounted on the robot is made to follow the weld line and welding conditions are adjusted in accordance with the detected gap width” as taught in abstract in Kosaka.
Regarding claim 7,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 2, wherein in the pre-measurement process, a shape of an inner side of the frame portion, the inner side including the frame portion, is measured along the frame portion. (Similar scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 9,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 4, wherein in the pre-measurement process, a shape of an inner side of the frame portion, the inner side including the frame portion, is measured along the frame portion. (Similar scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki, and Narayanan, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kosaka et al., US 6023044 (hereafter Kosaka).
Regarding claim 3,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 2, wherein in the pre-measurement process, the shape is measured under the condition where the shape sensor is inclined inward relative to the frame portion. (Primary combination of references is silent about this. The limitation “inclined inward relative to the frame” is interpreted as the beam scans the workpiece at an angle with respect to height as described in Fig. 7 in the original disclosure.
Kosaka teaches a laser sensor to measure gap between two workpieces. Fig. 4 and 5 teach that the beam scans the workpieces at an angle with respect to Z axis.)
PNG
media_image3.png
364
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Kosaka
PNG
media_image4.png
259
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 in Kosaka
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of measuring the shape wherein the scanning laser beam is inclined inward with respect to height as taught in Kosaka to the method in Yamasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In a multi-layer welding, weld line and a gap width of workpieces (A, B) to be welded are detected by a laser sensor mounted on a robot, during a welding for a first layer, whereby, a welding torch mounted on the robot is made to follow the weld line and welding conditions are adjusted in accordance with the detected gap width” as taught in abstract in Kosaka.
Regarding claim 5,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 3, wherein the internal building step includes a real-time correction process, and in the real-time correction process, the shape of the base is measured by the shape sensor, and the second plurality of the weld beads are formed while correcting the welding condition of the second plurality of the weld beads based on the depositing plan in real time based on the measured shape of the base. (Page 5, paragraph 11 in Yamasaki teaches “the control unit 37 recognizes the shape of one concave portion 66 formed by the three welding beads 54, 53B, 53C already formed based on the shape detection data detected from the shape detection sensor 23 (S16) . Then, the bead size of the new welding bead and the posture of the torch 17 are changed as necessary so as to fill the recess 66 (S17). Next, a new welding bead 54A (see FIG. 7), in which the setting of the bead size and the posture of the torch 17 are appropriately changed, is formed (S18).”)
Regarding claim 8,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 3, wherein in the pre-measurement process, a shape of an inner side of the frame portion, the inner side including the frame portion, is measured along the frame portion. (Similar scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 10,
The method for manufacturing an additively-manufactured object according to claim 5, wherein in the pre-measurement process, a shape of an inner side of the frame portion, the inner side including the frame portion, is measured along the frame portion. (Similar scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hofmann et al., US 20150014885, fig. 2
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