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 .
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 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711 teach the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Applicant
Co-Pending Application 18273711
1. (Currently Amended) A simulation method for secondary battery production performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
11. A simulation method of a mold notching machine for secondary battery production performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
executing an apparatus operating unit including a 3D model apparatus related to secondary battery production, a facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining operation of the 3D model apparatus, and a quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material produced by the 3D model apparatus,
executing an apparatus operating unit including a 3D mold notching machine related to secondary battery production;executing a facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the 3D mold notching machine;executing a quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material generated by the3D mold notching machine;
receiving at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit,
obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit;
determining an operation of the 3D model apparatus based on at least one of the first user action information or the first user condition information obtained, and
determining the operation of the 3D mold notching machine based on at least one of the first user action information and or the first user condition information; and
executing the operation of the 3D model apparatus included in the apparatus operating unit based on the determined operation.
punching out electrodes based on the operation of the 3D mold notching machine.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 15 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 16 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 18 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 7 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 7 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 20 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 9 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 9 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 18 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 21 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 5 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 6 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 8 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 17 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 17 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18273711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 19 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 19 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 8 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters (Figs. 13&21 [0064] [0068] [0148] [0149] test scenario is setup, the characteristic of weldment is tested and pass/fail condition is determined based on the characteristics).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 20 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 20 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 21 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters (Figs. 13&21 [0064] [0068] [0148] [0149] test scenario is setup, the characteristic of weldment is tested and pass/fail condition is determined based on the characteristics).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276013 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 16 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 17 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 19 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 7 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 7 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 20 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 21 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 6 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 7 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 9 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 17 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 17 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276392 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 15 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 16 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 18 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 7 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 7 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 20 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 21 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 5 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 6 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 8 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 17 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 17 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276431 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 14 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 19 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 5 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18273154 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 12 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 16 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 19 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 2 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 7 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18275804 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 13 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 11 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 11 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 21 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18276011 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters (Figs. 13&21 [0064] [0068] [0148] [0149] test scenario is setup, the characteristic of weldment is tested and pass/fail condition is determined based on the characteristics).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 15 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 19 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters (Figs. 13&21 [0064] [0068] [0148] [0149] test scenario is setup, the characteristic of weldment is tested and pass/fail condition is determined based on the characteristics).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 2 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 6 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18277219 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 13 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 13 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 13 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 14 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 15 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 17 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 13 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 13 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 25 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 2 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 5 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18278158 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 13 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 13 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 13 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 depends on claim 1, claim 13 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters (Figs. 13&21 [0064] [0068] [0148] [0149] test scenario is setup, the characteristic of weldment is tested and pass/fail condition is determined based on the characteristics).
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 claim 13 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 1, claim 13 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 13 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 13 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 13 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 25 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters (Figs. 13&21 [0064] [0068] [0148] [0149] test scenario is setup, the characteristic of weldment is tested and pass/fail condition is determined based on the characteristics).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272529 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 13 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 19 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 4 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787 in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18275787 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 12 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 12 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 12 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 16 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 17 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 19 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 7 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 7 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 22 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 12 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 12 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 23 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 5 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 6 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 8 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 17 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 17 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272553 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 10 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 3 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 11 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 4 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 4 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 12 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 5 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 16 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, claim 10 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 10 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 10 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 10 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 19 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 11 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 11 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 13 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 13 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 2 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 14 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 14 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 7 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18272562 in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 11, claim 1 of Co-pending Application does not explicitly further teach the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 claim 1 of Co-pending Application to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the apparatus wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
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 1-3, 9-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHUANG CN 107229343 A in view of PETERS WO 2014140720 A1.
Regarding claim 1, ZHUANG teaches a simulation method for secondary battery production performed by at least one processor (page 2 4th paragraph and page 4 paragraph 8, the VR operation of Lithium Ion battery production), the method comprising:
executing an apparatus operating unit including a 3D model apparatus related to secondary battery production (page 2 4th paragraph Lithium Ion battery coating device).
ZHUANG does not explicitly further teach:
executing an apparatus operating unit including a facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining operation of the 3D model apparatus, and a quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material produced by the 3D model apparatus;
receiving at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit;
determining an operation of the 3D model apparatus based on at least one of the first user action information or the first user condition information obtained, and
executing the operation of the 3D model apparatus included in the apparatus operating unit based on the determined operation.
PETERS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that:
executing an apparatus operating unit including a facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining operation of the 3D model apparatus, and a quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material produced by the 3D model apparatus (Figs. 1&12 [0041] [0042] [0062] – [0066] the PPS 110 including setting up welding scenario including wire feed speed, voltage level etc. i.e. “a facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining operation of the 3D model apparatus”; setting up a virtual testing or inspection scenario including destructive or non-destructive test i.e. “a quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material produced by the 3D model apparatus”);
receiving at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit (Figs. 12&13 [0063] – [0065] wire feed speed, voltage level etc. are input by user joystick; welding process, gas type, flow rate etc. selected by user),
determining an operation of the 3D model apparatus based on at least one of the first user action information or the first user condition information obtained, and
executing the operation of the 3D model apparatus included in the apparatus operating unit based on the determined operation (Figs. 12&13 [0063] – [0069] [0077] [0080] the mock welding tool is operated using an operation based on the input by user joystick and the welding scenario selected by the user).
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 ZHUANG to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein executing an apparatus operating unit including a facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining operation of the 3D model apparatus, and a quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material produced by the 3D model apparatus; receiving at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit; determining an operation of the 3D model apparatus based on at least one of the first user action information or the first user condition information obtained, and executing the operation of the 3D model apparatus included in the apparatus operating unit based on the determined operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, PETERS further teaches determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus ([0099] the operation of removing material is approved if the material removal is below a hard limit).
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 ZHUANG to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining, when the first user action information is received, whether the received first user action information corresponds to a predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus, and approving the operation of the 3D model apparatus when it is determined that the first user action information corresponds to the predetermined operating condition of the 3D model apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 3, PETERS further teaches determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters (Figs. 13&21 [0064] [0068] [0148] [0149] test scenario is setup, the characteristic of weldment is tested and pass/fail condition is determined based on the characteristics).
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 ZHUANG to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein determining one or more quality parameters for determining the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus; calculating a value corresponding to each of the determined one or more quality parameters based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed while the operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution; and generating quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 9, PETERS further teaches the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters ([0064] flow rate).
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 ZHUANG to incorporate the teachings of PETERS, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method wherein the first user condition information includes information associated with a value corresponding to at least one adjustment parameter included in the plurality of adjustment parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to aid in training production operation students, as PETERS teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 10, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions carrying out the method steps with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since ZHUANG and PETERS teach the claimed method, they teach the instructions for implementing the method steps.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 19, it is directed to an apparatus carrying out the method steps with similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-3 and 9, respectively. Since ZHUANG and PETERS teach the claimed method, they teach the apparatus for implementing the method steps, respectively.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHUANG in view of PETERS as applied to claims 1-3, 9-13 and 19 above, further in view of WANG US 20210075706 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, neither ZHUANG nor PETERS explicitly further teaches determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios.
WANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios ([0044] simulating malfunctions of equipment, repairing the production equipment by adjusting the equipment parameters).
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 ZHUANG and PETERS to incorporate the teachings of WANG, because they all directed to simulating production, to make the method/apparatus wherein determining one or more defect scenarios among a plurality of defect scenarios related to malfunction of the 3D model apparatus; and modifying at least one of the operation of the 3D model apparatus or the quality information related to the quality of the material based on the determined one or more defect scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simulate the operational behavior of maintenance personal, as WANG teaches in [0044].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7,15 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, with the appropriate filing of Terminal Disclaimer.
Claims 6, 8, 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 15, claims 5 and 15 depend on claims 4 and 14, respectively. ZHUANG, PETERS and WANG together teach the claim limitations of claims 4 and 14. However, ZHUANG, PETERS and WANG do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
receiving at least one of second user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or second user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit for resolving the determined one or more defect scenarios;
correcting the modified operation of the 3D model apparatus based on at least one of the received second user action information or the received second user condition information;
calculating a value corresponding to each of the-one or more quality parameters related to the quality of the material produced by the 3D model apparatus based on the operation of the 3D model apparatus being executed, while the corrected operation of the 3D model apparatus is in execution;
correcting the quality information related to the quality of the material produced by the corrected 3D model apparatus based on the calculated value corresponding to each of the one or more quality parameters; and
determining whether the one or more defect scenarios are resolved based on the corrected quality information.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, claims 7 and 17 depend on claims 4 and 14, respectively. ZHUANG, PETERS and WANG together teach the claim limitations of claims 4 and 14. However, ZHUANG, PETERS and WANG do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
outputting guide information including condition information and action information required to resolve the one or more defect scenarios.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, claims 8 and 18 depend on claims 4 and 14, respectively. ZHUANG, PETERS and WANG together teach the claim limitations of claims 4 and 14. However, ZHUANG, PETERS and WANG do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
obtaining, when a malfunction occurs in an external device associated with the 3D model apparatus, error information related to the malfunction; and generating a defect scenario related to the malfunction of the 3D model apparatus based on the obtained error information.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the dependent claims are allowable as they depend upon allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maturana US 20170025040 A1 teaches generation of control system level scenarios for training simulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Lee can be reached on (571)272-3667. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115