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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not disclose claim 16 and claim 25 “wherein each instance of communication from the central controller to a subsystem contains no more than one single instance of deposit location information for use by the subsystem.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Material depositing device” in claim 12. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Paragraph 107-108 states that the depositing device 1420 has “A tip….as having a central passage 1423 through which a wire 1424, comprising the material to be deposited, is fed outward in a controlled fashion and protrudes from the tip of the depositor.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15 and 17-30 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.
Multiple claims recite “scheduled time-of-occurrence value” and “scheduled times of occurrence values,” sometimes both recitations will be in the same claim. It is unclear if this is merely inconsistent terminology or if applicants intend for them to be different limitations.
Claim 15 recites “the total deposit location information.” This lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 30 recites “until no collision instances are detected.” Collision instances lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meess (US 2018/0253080 A1).
Claim 12. Meess discloses an additive manufacturing system (additive manufacturing tool, Fig. 1E) for forming an object (printed part, par. 31, Fig. 1E) by successively depositing at least one material (robots 112a and 112b deposits material, par. 31) comprising:
a first robotic material-depositing subsystem (robot 112a, Fig. 1E) comprising a first non-continuous material- depositing device (filament is fed through the hot end of the extruder, par. 33, see claim interpretation) attached to a first motion control system (robot carriage 108a, Fig. 1A), the first subsystem performing a material depositing action at a specified first location by moving the first material-depositing device to the first location (controller directs the robot to a correct XYZ position for depositing the filament, par. 33; wherein the first location could be in zone A-D, Fig. 5, par. 80) and depositing a mass of material at the first location (filament material is deposited at a location, par. 33), the first location being within a first area comprising a plurality of locations reachable by the first subsystem and being specified by deposit location information provided to the first subsystem (robot 112a can move in a build volume that is in a region of the build platform, par. 34, wherein the controller specifies the XYZ location for deposition, par. 33);
a second robotic material-depositing subsystem (112b, Fig. 1A, 1E) comprising a second non-continuous material-depositing device (filament is fed through the hot end of the extruder, par. 33, see claim interpretation) attached to a second motion control system (robot carriage 108b, Fig. 1A), the second subsystem performing a material depositing action at a specified second location by moving the second material-depositing device to the second location (controller directs the robot to a correct XYZ position for depositing the filament, par. 33; wherein the second location could be in zone C, Fig. 5, par. 81) and depositing a mass of material at the second location (filament material is deposited at a location, par. 33), the second location being within a second area comprising a plurality of locations reachable by the second subsystem and being specified by deposit location information provided to the second subsystem (robot 112b can move in a build volume that is in a region of the build platform, par. 34, wherein the controller specifies the XYZ location for deposition, par. 33);
a central controller (controller, par. 45), communicably coupled to the first and second subsystems (controller controls the robots, par. 45), operable to maintain at least one ordered list of deposit instructions (system, which includes the controller, receives print instructions, par. 47) comprising deposit location information (print instructions include route to each of the robot to travel deposit the filament, par. 47, where it is understood that the final deposition position is provided, par. 33) and to control the construction of the object by providing deposit location information to the first and second subsystems (print instructions include route to each of the robot to travel deposit the filament to build the layers of the object, par. 47).
Claim 13. Meess discloses the system of claim 12 wherein the controller controls which subsystem is to perform a material depositing action corresponding to each of the deposit instructions (the controller gives deposition instructions to each robot, par. 47).
Claim 14. Meess discloses the system of claim 13 wherein at least one deposit location specified by a deposit instruction is within both the first area and the second area (deposition location can reside in zone C, par. 81, Fig. 5) and wherein the central controller is further operable to control whether the first subsystem or the second subsystem performs a material depositing action at the deposit location (system determines based on the one or more seams, i.e. deposit location, par. 52, how to portion out the area of seams to the different robots, par. 58-60).
Claim 15. Meess discloses the system of claim 12 wherein each instance of communication from the central controller to a subsystem contains a proper subset of the total deposit location information contained in the ordered list of deposit instructions (position of the robot can be associated with job zones, wherein the job zone information can be considered a subset of the deposition location, claim 23, par. 84-85).
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meess as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Meess.
Claim 16. Meess does not disclose the system of claim 15 wherein each instance of communication from the central controller to a subsystem contains no more than one single instance of deposit location information for use by the subsystem.
Meess discloses slicing the 3D model into a plurality of layers which are then split into portions and the portions into seams, i.e. deposited positions (par. 50-51). The locations of these seams and portions are then allocated to the corresponding robot for performing extrusion (par. 52).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not send the same location twice to the robot for extrusion when in additive manufacturing the layers are deposited one at a time (par. 4). To send the same location data to the robot twice would result in depositing two layers in the same location when the system is trying to print one layer at a time (par. 4).
Claim(s) 17, 19-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meess as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Linnell (US 2015/0336269 A1).
Claim 17. Meess discloses the system of claim 12 further comprising: a source of time information available to the central controller (robots can be coordinated through timing, par. 64, where the BRI of “time information” includes “timing” of the robot’s position in relation to the other robot);
wherein each deposit instruction in the ordered list is associated with a
Linnell discloses multiple robotic devices wherein there is a time-based order of sequences (instructions) that include the target positions of the robotic devices (par. 112) and the sequence may be modified (par. 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meess to incorporate the teachings of Linnell and have the print instructions be a time-based order of sequences. Doing so would have the benefit of parallel execution of multiple robot devices (par. 30-31, Linnell).
Claim 19. Meess in view of Linnell discloses the system of claim 17 wherein the first and second subsystems are positioned within the system such that, for at least one combination of a first location within the first area and a second location within the second area, moving the first subsystem in accordance with the first location while moving the second subsystem in accordance with the second location results in physical contact between one or more components of the first subsystem and one or more components of the second subsystem (system defines job zones and exclusion zones so that a robot acting in a job zone does not intersect with another robot acting in another job zone, par. 40).
Claim 20. Meess in view of Linnell discloses the system of claim 19 wherein the central controller is operable to analyze the scheduled times of occurrence values for as-yet-unexecuted deposit instructions in the at least one ordered list and to detect the presence of one or more collision instances in which moving the first subsystem in accordance with the first location and moving the second subsystem in accordance with the second location will be coincident (possible collisions resulting from parallel execution of the time-based sequences may be identified and modified to prevent collisions, par. 4 and block 706, Linnell).
Claim 21. Meess in view of Linnell discloses the system of claim 20 wherein, responsive to detecting the presence of at least one collision instance (detect collisions, par. 37), the central controller is further operable to iteratively rearrange the deposit instructions in the at least one ordered list (time-based sequence of operations may be modified by modifying timesteps corresponding to particular operations and/or by inserting, removing, or modifying particular operations within the sequence, par. 122, Linnel) and analyze the scheduled times of occurrence values for all as-yet-unexecuted deposit instructions until no collision instances are detected (sequence is analyzed for possible future collisions, par. 118).
Claim 22. Meess in view of Linnell discloses the system of claim 19 wherein the controller maintains a first subsystem-specific ordered list of deposit instructions corresponding to a sequence of deposit actions to be performed by the first subsystem and a second subsystem-specific ordered list of deposit instructions corresponding to a sequence of deposit actions to be performed by the second subsystem (controller sends instructions to control the movement of the respective robots, par. 37).
Claim 24. Meess in view of Linnell discloses the system of claim 22 wherein each instance of communication from the central controller to a particular subsystem contains a proper subset of the total deposit location information contained in the subsystem-specific ordered list of deposit instructions for that particular subsystem (position of the robot can be associated with job zones, wherein the job zone information can be considered a subset of the deposition location, claim 23, par. 84-85).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meess in view of Linnell as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jie (CN 105044154 A).
Claim 18. Meess in view of Linnell does not disclose the system of claim 17 further comprising a thermal sensor coupled to the central controller and detecting one or more thermal conditions of materials that have been deposited by the system,
wherein the central controller operates to change at least one scheduled time-of- occurrence value responsive to at least one thermal condition detected by the thermal sensor.
Jie discloses a method of laser additive manufacturing wherein a thermal detector detects surface defects and then the laser re-melts the area to repair the defect (step 1 and 2, par. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meess in view of Linnell and Meess ‘965 to incorporate the teachings of Jie and have the manufacturing system repair the detected defect. Doing so would have the eliminating surface defects (par. 9, Jie).
This would result a change in at least one scheduled time-of- occurrence value due to the system going back to the same location to repair the surface defect.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meess in view of Linnell as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Meess ‘965 (US 20180200965 A1).
Claim 23. The system of claim 22 wherein at least one location specified by a deposit instruction in the first subsystem-specific ordered list is also within the second area and wherein the controller is further operable to move the deposit instruction from the first ordered list to the second ordered list.
Meess ‘965 discloses a method for manufacturing a 3D object with multiple robots (par. 5) wherein each robot is assigned tasks in a queue wherein tasks are moved from one queue to another (par. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meess in view of Linnell to incorporate the teachings of Meess ‘965 and have the controller be capable of adjusting the tasks in print instructions between robots. Doing so would have the benefit of reducing the total time of manufacturing by improving efficiency (par. 61, Meess ‘965).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meess in view of Linnell as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Meess.
Claim 25. Meess in view of Linnell does not disclose the system of claim 24 wherein each instance of communication from the central controller to the particular subsystem contains no more than one single instance of deposit location information for use by the particular subsystem.
Meess discloses slicing the 3D model into a plurality of layers which are then split into portions and the portions into seams, i.e. deposited positions (par. 50-51). The locations of these seams and portions are then allocated to the corresponding robot for performing extrusion (par. 52).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not send the same location twice to the robot for extrusion when in additive manufacturing the layers are deposited one at a time (par. 4). To send the same location data to the robot twice would result in depositing two layers in the same location when the system is trying to print one layer at a time (par. 4).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meess in view of Linnell as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jie (CN 105044154 A) and Narita (US 20210162508 A1).
Claim 26. Meess in view of Linnell does not disclose the system of claim 21 wherein at least one subsystem is operable to
detect failure of an attempted discrete deposit at a specific location corresponding to a first deposit instruction and to
communicate a first notification of the failure to the central controller and wherein, in response to the notification, the central controller is operable to
suspend communicating further deposit location information to the subsystem until receiving a second notification from the subsystem that the discrete deposit at the specific location has been successfully completed.
Jie discloses a method of laser additive manufacturing wherein a thermal detector detects surface defects, the defect is communicated to the controller (par. 29), the laser re-melts the area to repair the defect (step 1 and 2, par. 8-9), then the next layer is produced (par. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meess in view of Linnell to incorporate the teachings of Jie and detect if a failed deposition occurred, stop the process, repair it, and continue. Doing so would have the benefit of reducing the surface defects in the printed part.
Meess in view of Linnell and Jie does not disclose detecting the defect and then suspending the print in response.
Narita discloses a detection method for additive manufacturing wherein after detection of the a defect during printing the print is stopped (par. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meess in view of Linnell and Jie to incorporate the teachings of Narita and detect the defect during printing and then stopping the process. Doing so would have the benefit of reducing operation time by performing inspection in real-time (par. 9, Narita).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meess in view of Linnell and Meess ‘965 as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Jie (CN 105044154 A).
Claim 30. Meess in view of Linnell and Meess ‘965 discloses the system of claim 23 further comprising:
move at least one deposit instruction from the first ordered list to the second ordered list and to iteratively rearrange the deposit instructions in the at least one ordered list (each robot is assigned tasks in a queue wherein tasks can be moved from one queue to another, par. 36, Meess ‘965) and
analyze the scheduled times of occurrence values for all as-yet-unexecuted deposit instructions until no collision instances are detected (sequence is analyzed for possible future collisions, par. 118, Linnell).
Meess in view of Linnell and Meess ‘965 does not disclose a thermal sensor coupled to the central controller and detecting one or more thermal conditions of materials that have been deposited by the system,
wherein the central controller is further operable to, responsive to detecting at least one thermal condition.
Jie discloses a method of laser additive manufacturing wherein a thermal detector detects surface defects and then the laser re-melts the area to repair the defect (step 1 and 2, par. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meess in view of Linnell and Meess ‘965 to incorporate the teachings of Jie and have the manufacturing system repair the detected defect. Doing so would have the eliminating surface defects (par. 9, Jie).
This combination will result in adjusting the print instruction so that the system goes back to the same location to repair the defect. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze the queue and shift the tasks between queues for the different robots to improve efficiency (par. 61, Meess ‘965) and also check for collision when the queue is updated (par. 118, Linnell).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose an additive manufacturing device with multiple robot depositing subsystem wherein the central controller is further operable to compare a time associated with the successfully completed discrete deposit to the scheduled time-of-occurrence value for the first deposit instruction and calculating an incurred delay time value resulting from the failure at the subsystem.
Voorhies discloses multiple robots performing operations wherein it monitors when failure or unexpected delays occurs (par. 56), the task clusters may be rescheduled upon detection of delays (par. 56), and the system can calculate the time the robot takes to perform an event (par. 44). However, Voorhies does not disclose calculating the calculating an incurred delay time value resulting from the failure at the subsystem
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights