DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 07 March 2023. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
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 .
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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.
Claim limitations of claims 1-16 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a management system”, “an apparatus configured to perform a modeling process”, “apparatus data acquiring unit”, “state determining unit”, “state change detecting unit”, “a control device”, “a management apparatus”, “transmitting unit”, “state managing unit”, “management apparatus”, “process information generating unit”, “apparatus identifying unit”, “process state determining unit”, “apparatus managing unit”, and “apparatus configured to perform the modeling process” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-16 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2021/0308950 A1) hereinafter known as Kobayashi.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kobayashi teaches:
A management system configured to manage an apparatus configured to perform a modeling process for generating three-dimensional modeled object, the management system comprising: (Kobayashi: Fig. 2 and ¶[0043], ¶[0048], and ¶[0058]; Kobayashi teaches using 3D model data to fabricate an object.)
an apparatus data acquiring unit configured to acquire apparatus data on an operation of the apparatus; and (Kobayashi: ¶[0093]; Kobayashi teaches a quality data recording unit which is used by an analyzer 213 which analyzes received quality data to determine the quality of the fabricated object.)
...
An embodiment of Kobayashi does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
a state determining unit configured to determine a state of the apparatus, using the acquired apparatus data and reference data corresponding to a reference state of the apparatus to be managed. (Kobayashi: Figs. 19-20 and ¶[0154]-¶[0155], ¶[0160], and ¶[0165]-¶[0167]; Kobayashi teaches monitoring state information from the monitoring apparatuses of the peripheral devices. This state information is presented in logs, as shown in Fig. 11 and ¶[0120].)
Kobayashi is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to managing a fabrication process. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine an embodiment where a management system fabricates an object based on 3D modeling data that monitors data with a further embodiment that acquires and monitors state information. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow a visual check of the setting of the peripheral devices, as suggested by Kobayashi: ¶[0166].
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further teaches:
further comprising a state change detecting unit configured to detect a state change of the apparatus, based on the acquired apparatus data, wherein the state determining unit is configured to determine the state of the apparatus in accordance with detection of the state change by the state change detecting unit. (Kobayashi: ¶[0174]; Kobayashi teaches acquiring images, setting information, and state information. Fig. 11 and ¶[0120] further teach displaying the different state changes.)
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further teaches:
comprising: a control device configured to control the operation of the apparatus; and (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches fabrication apparatus 110 which contains the system controller with an analyzer (state determination unit) and the quality-data recording unit (apparatus data acquiring unit).)
a management apparatus capable of communicating with the control device via a communication network, (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches an information processing apparatus which communicates with the fabrication apparatus.)
wherein the control device includes: the apparatus data acquiring unit; the state determining unit; (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches fabrication apparatus 110 which contains the system controller with an analyzer (state determination unit) and the quality-data recording unit (apparatus data acquiring unit).)
a transmitting unit configured to transmit apparatus state information indicating the state of the apparatus determined by the state determining unit to the management apparatus, and the management apparatus includes a state managing unit configured to manage the state of the apparatus indicated by the apparatus state information transmitted from the control device, for each modeling process. (Kobayashi: Figs. 2, 4, and ¶[0119]; Kobayashi teaches the system controller communicating with the web browser of the information processing apparatus, which is used to access the web server of the system controller and acquire quality data.)
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further teaches:
comprising: a control device configured to control the operation of the apparatus; and (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches fabrication apparatus 110 which contains the system controller with an analyzer (state determination unit) and the quality-data recording unit (apparatus data acquiring unit).)
a management apparatus capable of communicating with the control device via a communication network, (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches an information processing apparatus which communicates with the fabrication apparatus.)
wherein the control device includes a transmitting unit configured to transmit the apparatus data to the management apparatus, and the management apparatus includes: the apparatus data acquiring unit configured to acquire the apparatus data transmitted from the control device; (Kobayashi: Figs. 2, 4, and ¶[0119]; Kobayashi teaches the system controller communicating with the web browser of the information processing apparatus, which is used to access the web server of the system controller and acquire quality data.)
the state determining unit; and a state managing unit configured to manage the state of the apparatus determined by the state determining unit, for each modeling process. (Kobayashi: Figs. 2; Kobayashi teaches the system controller and also engine controller communicating with the web browser of the information processing apparatus, which is used to access the web server of the system controller and acquire quality data.)
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 4.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the management apparatus further includes: a process information generating unit configured to generate process information indicating the modeling process in response to a request from a communication terminal; and an apparatus identifying unit configured to identify the apparatus configured to perform the modeling process, in accordance with the modeling process indicated by the generated process information. (Kobayashi: Fig. 2 and ¶[0043]; Kobayashi teaches 3D model data 202 being input into slicer software which reads and renders the 3D model, which is passed down into control data and passed to the control device (fabrication apparatus 110).)
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 5.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the management apparatus further includes a process state determining unit configured to determine a state of the modeling process in accordance with the state of the apparatus determined by the state determining unit, and the state managing unit is configured to manage the state of the apparatus and the state of the modeling process. (Kobayashi: Figs. 2, 4, and ¶[0119]; Kobayashi teaches the system controller communicating with the web browser of the information processing apparatus, which is used to access the web server of the system controller and acquire quality data.)
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 8.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the state of the modeling process comprises in-modeling and in-waiting. (Kobayashi: Figs. 19-20 and ¶[0154]-¶[0155], ¶[0160], ¶[0165]-¶[0167], and ¶[0180]; Kobayashi teaches monitoring state information from the monitoring apparatuses of the peripheral devices. Fig. 12 contains time before the build start and time after build start, which are interpreted as waiting and in-modeling.)
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 8.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the apparatus includes apparatuses included in a plurality of modeling systems, the state managing unit is configured to manage states of the apparatuses and states of the modeling processes performed by the plurality of modeling systems. (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches multiple apparatuses involved in the fabrication process which is managed by the system and engine controllers.)
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 4.
Kobayashi further teaches:
further comprising an apparatus managing unit configured to chronologically manage the apparatus data acquired by the apparatus data acquiring unit. (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches multiple apparatuses involved in the fabrication process which is managed by the system and engine controllers. ¶[0117] further teaches keeping track of the chronological order of where errors occurred and the conditions of the motor and heater.)
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the apparatus data comprises image data in which one of the apparatus and a target object processed by the apparatus is captured. (Kobayashi: Fig. 2 and ¶[0122]-¶[0123]; Kobayashi teaches an image-capturing device to keep track of the fabrication process.)
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the modeling process includes at least a modeling process of modeling a target object and a post-processing process of performing post-processing on the target object modeled by the modeling process. (Kobayashi: Fig. 2 and 19 and ¶[0156]-¶[0160]; Kobayashi teaches peripheral device 410 which performs a process after fabrication.)
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi further teaches:
Kobayashi further teaches:
the management system according to claim 1; and (as cited above)
a modeling system including the apparatus configured to perform the modeling process. (Kobayashi: Fig. 2; Kobayashi teaches an information processing apparatus with a modeling system.)
Regarding claims 15 and 16, these claims recite a management method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that perform the function of the management system of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Shiihara (US 2017/0123407 A1) hereinafter known as Shiihara.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 2.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the reference state comprises waiting, in-modeling, elimination, ... and afterheat, and the state determining unit is configured to determine, as the state of the apparatus, at least one of the reference state. (Kobayashi: Figs. 19-20 and ¶[0154]-¶[0155], ¶[0160], ¶[0165]-¶[0167], and ¶[0180]; Kobayashi teaches monitoring state information from the monitoring apparatuses of the peripheral devices. Fig. 19 and ¶[0158] further teaches the monitored peripheral devices including the solvent drying device, an excess-powder eliminator, and a degreasing and sintering device. The foregoing teaches elimination, and afterheat. Fig. 12 contains time before the build start and time after build start, which are interpreted as waiting and in-modeling.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach but Shiihara teaches:
...taking in, taking out, ... (Shiihara: Fig. 11 and ¶[0109]; Shiihara teaches indicating consumable material to be used and amount of remaining consumable material.)
Kobayashi and Shiihara are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to managing a fabrication process. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a management system that fabricates an object based on 3D modeling data that monitors data in different states as taught in Kobayashi with further monitoring states such as taking in and out as taught in Shiihara. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to include teachings of Shiihara because the combination would allow the user to manage the consumable material, as suggested by Shiihara: ¶[0109].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kusaka (US 2018/0129173 A1) hereinafter known as Kusaka.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi further teaches the management system according to claim 6.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach but Kusaka further teaches:
wherein the modeling process comprising processes performed by a first apparatus and a second apparatus, and the apparatus identifying unit is configured to identify the second apparatus in a case where the first apparatus completes the process. (Kusaka: Figs. 2A-3 and ¶[0031]-¶[0032]; Kusaka teaches event data that indicates events occurring at multiple parts of the manufacturing process to generate a state machine.)
Kobayashi and Kusaka are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to managing a fabrication process. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a management system that fabricates an object based on 3D modeling data using plurality of apparatuses as taught in Kobayashi with further explicitly passing the object from one apparatus to the next based on the prior completion as taught in Kusaka. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to include teachings of Kusaka because the combination would allow monitoring virtual workpieces, as suggested by Kusaka: ¶[0032] and ¶[0095].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118