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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, made in the previous Office Action.
The amendment to the claims overcame the objections to the claims made in the previous Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48 – 53 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 34 – 47 and 54 – 72 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 34 – 37, 39 – 42, 45, 61, 62, 64 – 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US 2020/0238381 (hereinafter Shi) in view of Mittendorf US 2012/0222306 (hereinafter Mittendorf).
Regarding claim 34, Shi teaches: a processing system comprising:
a processing apparatus configured to perform an additive processing on a plurality of objects (Fig. 1); and
a control apparatus configured to control the processing apparatus (Fig. 1 - -control system),
the control apparatus being configured to generate, based on a result of a first measurement operation that measures a first object of the plurality of objects, first processing control information for controlling the processing apparatus to perform the additive processing on the first object ([0087] - - based on digital representations, the control system generates print commands to print extension segments on workpieces; the digital representation is a first measurement),
the control apparatus being configured to control the processing apparatus to perform, based on the first processing control information, the additive processing on the first object ([0095] - - all of the blades is kept together and extension segments are printed in one single build).
But Shi does not explicitly teach:
the control apparatus being configured to control the processing apparatus to perform, based on the first processing control information, the additive processing on the additive processing on a second object of the plurality of objects that is different from the first object.
However, Mittendorf teaches:
the control apparatus being configured to control the processing apparatus to perform, based on the first processing control information, the additive processing on the additive processing on a second object of the plurality of objects that is different from the first object (Fig. 5, [0055] - - each of the turbine component is generally identical after step 515, this enables further individual processing is not necessary, the successive layers can be formed for the group of turbine components simultaneously according to a common design).
Shi and Mittendorf are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Shi, and incorporating forming successive layers of a group of components according to a common design, as taught by Mittendorf.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve repairing method for turbine components, as suggested by Mittendorf ([0005]).
Claim 72 is substantially similar to claim 34 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: an object placement apparatus on which the plurality of objects are placed, after the processing apparatus performs the additive processing on a plurality of third objects including the first and second objects, a plurality of fourth objects different from the plurality of third objects being placed on the object placement apparatus (Fig. 2A, [0085] - - build plate is an object placement apparatus),
Mittendorf further teaches: the control apparatus being configured to control the processing apparatus to perform, based on the first processing control information, the additive processing on the plurality of fourth objects (Fig. 5, [0055] - - each of the turbine component is generally identical after step 515, this enables further individual processing is not necessary, the successive layers can be formed for the group of turbine components simultaneously according to a common design);
Shi and Mittendorf are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: an energy beam irradiation part configured to emit an energy beam toward each of the plurality of objects ([0091] - - laser); and
a material supply part configured to supply a build material to a part that is irradiated with the energy beam ([0100] - - recoater of a powder bed fusion system apply uniform layers of powder).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: sizes of at least two of the plurality of objects are different from each other (Fig. 3A – different sizes objects).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to selectively perform the additive processing on the plurality of objects ([0087], [0088] - - selective laser melting).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to not to complete a repair on a missing part of a fifth object of the plurality of objects ([0098] - - misalignment may cause printing failures, thus not to complete a repair).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to not to perform the additive processing based on the first processing control information on at least the fifth object of the plurality of objects ([0098] - - misalignment may cause printing failure attributable to an overly thick layer of powder, thus not to perform the additive processing; this shows if processing using the first processing control information which is created according to 1st workpiece, e.g. same laser power level, the 2nd workpiece would fail due to overly thick power).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to not to perform the additive processing for a repair on at least the fifth object of the plurality of objects. ([0098] - - misalignment may cause printing failure, thus not to perform the additive processing).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the processing system is configured not to perform the first measurement operation on the fifth object for generating the first processing control information ([0098] - - misalignment may cause printing failures and collisions, thus not to perform the first measurement operation for generating the first processing control information).
Regarding claim 61, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to change a processed amount by the processing apparatus by changing a distance between a processing head of the processing apparatus and a build surface of each of the plurality of objects on which the additive processing is performed (Fig. 1, [0091] - - a build piston lowers the build platform, thus the distance between the print head and the build surface can be changed).
Regarding claim 62, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: an object placement apparatus on which the plurality of objects are placed, the control apparatus is configured to change a relative positional relationship between the object placement apparatus and the processing apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 2A, [0091] - - a build piston lowers the build platform, build platform is an object placement apparatus).
Regarding claim 64, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to change the relative positional relationship between the object placement apparatus and the processing apparatus by controlling an attitude change apparatus configured to change an attitude of the object placement apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 2A, [0091] - - a build piston lowers the build platform).
Regarding claim 65, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the processing apparatus is configured to perform the additive processing on the plurality of objects placed on a jig, the control apparatus is configured to change a relative positional relationship between the processing apparatus and the plurality of objects placed on the jig (Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, [0100] - - the build plate is capable of aligning a plurality of work pieces; build plate is a jig).
Regarding claim 66, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to perform the additive processing on a first surface of each of the first and second objects, and then, perform the additive processing on a second surface, which is different from the first surface, of each of the first and second objects after the control apparatus changes the relative positional relationship ([0088] - - subsequent layers are fused to one another; the original surface is a first surface, the next layer surface is a second surface).
Regarding claim 67, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: at least one of the plurality of objects includes a turbine blade and a turbine shaft ([0095] - - turbine blade).
Regarding claim 68, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the processing apparatus is configured to perform a repair processing on a plurality of objects (Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, [0009] - - batch processing for repairing a large number of components).
Regarding claim 69, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to generate, based on at least one of shape information related to a shape of a model of a first build object that is formed on the plurality of objects and the result of the first measurement operation, the first processing control information ([0134] - - print command based on extension segment CAD model).
Regarding claim 70, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the control apparatus is configured to generate, based on at least one of shape information related to a shape of a model of a first build object that is formed on the plurality of objects and the result of the first measurement operation, the first processing control information ([0134] - - print command based on extension segment CAD model).
Regarding claim 71, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: the processing system is configured to perform an additive processing based on a Laser Metal Deposition (LMD) ([0054] - - Direct Metal laser Melting).
Claims 38, 43, 44, 47, 54 – 57, 59, 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US 2020/0238381 (hereinafter Shi) in view of Mittendorf US 2012/0222306 (hereinafter Mittendorf) and further in view of OTT US 2019/0358755 (hereinafter OTT).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shi and Mittendorf does not explicitly teach:
the control apparatus controls the processing apparatus so that a difference in size between the at least two objects after the processing apparatus performs the additive processing is smaller than a difference in size between the at least two objects before the processing apparatus performs the additive processing.
However, OTT teaches:
the control apparatus controls the processing apparatus so that a difference in size between the at least two objects after the processing apparatus performs the additive processing is smaller than a difference in size between the at least two objects before the processing apparatus performs the additive processing (Fig. 4, [0070], [0071] - - after printing a layer in thickness D, the difference between objects are smaller).
Shi, Mittendorf and OTT are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Shi and Mittendorf, and incorporating difference in size of objects is smaller after the processing, as taught by OTT.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to repair a plurality of components in parallel, as suggested by OTT ([0013]).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shi and Mittendorf does not explicitly teach:
a second measurement operation for measuring a shape of each of the plurality of objects is performed before the first measurement operation is performed,
the fifth object is an object whose shape measured by the second measurement operation does not satisfy a predetermined shape criterion.
However, OTT teaches:
a second measurement operation for measuring a shape of each of the plurality of objects is performed before the first measurement operation is performed,
the fifth object is an object whose shape measured by the second measurement operation does not satisfy a predetermined shape criterion ([0067] - - height measurement is a second measurement; [0069] - - the middle component is out of the tolerance range).
Shi, Mittendorf and OTT are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Shi and Mittendorf, and incorporating detecting a fifth object not satisfying a criterion, as taught by OTT.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid damage, as suggested by OTT ([0069]).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
OTT further teaches: the additive processing is not performed on at least the fifth object of the plurality of objects after the second measurement operation is performed ([0069] - - the additive processing is not performed since there is collision risk).
Shi, Mittendorf and OTT are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shi and Mittendorf does not explicitly teach:
a second measurement operation for measuring a shape of each of the plurality of objects is performed before the first measurement operation is performed, the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to perform the additive process on a fifth object, whose shape measured by the second measurement operation does not satisfy a predetermined shape criterion, among the plurality of objects..
However, OTT teaches:
a second measurement operation for measuring a shape of each of the plurality of objects is performed before the first measurement operation is performed, the processing apparatus is configured to perform the additive process on a fifth object, whose shape measured by the second measurement operation does not satisfy a predetermined shape criterion, among the plurality of objects. ([0067] - - height measurement is a second measurement; [0069] - - the middle component is out of the tolerance range; [0071] - - after the height of middle component is corrected, the additive process is performed).
Shi, Mittendorf and OTT are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Shi and Mittendorf, and incorporating detecting a fifth object not satisfying a criterion, as taught by OTT.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid damage, as suggested by OTT ([0069]).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: a measurement field of view of a measurement apparatus performing the second measurement operation is wider than a measurement field of view of a measurement apparatus performing the first measurement operation (Fig. 6A, 6B, [0026] - - field of view including one piece and field of view including a plurality of pieces, thus it is a design choice to use different field of view).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: an accuracy in the second measurement operation is lower than an accuracy in the first measurement operation (Fig. 6A, 6B, [0086] - - a field of view being wide enough to encompass a plurality of workpieces has a lower accuracy; a field of view narrowly focus on an individual workpiece has higher accuracy; thus it is a design choice to use different accuracy) .
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shi further teaches: a measurement resolution in the second measurement operation is lower than a measurement resolution in the first measurement operation (Fig. 6A, 6B, [0086] - - a field of view being wide enough to encompass a plurality of workpieces has a lower resolution; a field of view narrowly focus on an individual workpiece has higher resolution; thus it is a design choice to use different resolution) .
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
OTT further teaches: the second measurement operation is performed after a pre-processing process is performed on at least one of the plurality of objects ([0008] - - the damaged region is removed and subsequently built up by laser metal deposition; removing damaged region is a pre-processing process; [0067] - - height measurement is performed after preprocessing).
Shi, Mittendorf and OTT are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
OTT further teaches: the pre-processing process includes a removal processing process for removing a part of the object and an additive processing for adding a build object to the object ([0008] - - the damaged region is removed and subsequently built up by laser metal deposition; removing damaged region is a pre-processing process).
Shi, Mittendorf and OTT are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shi and Mittendorf does not explicitly teach:
a fourth measurement operation for measuring a shape of at least one of the first and second objects is performed after the processing apparatus performs the additive processing on at least one of the first and second objects, the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to process at least one of the first and second objects based on a result of the fourth measurement operation.
However, OTT teaches:
a fourth measurement operation for measuring a shape of at least one of the first and second objects is performed after the processing apparatus performs the additive processing on at least one of the first and second objects, the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to process at least one of the first and second objects based on a result of the fourth measurement operation. ([0034] - - the distance of each structural peak of the component in relation to the base plate is measured during the additive building up of layers, for example, after each of the fused layers.).
Shi, Mittendorf and OTT are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Shi and Mittendorf, and incorporating measuring during 3D printing, as taught by OTT.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to repair a plurality of components in parallel, as suggested by OTT ([0013]).
Claims 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US 2020/0238381 (hereinafter Shi) in view of Mittendorf US 2012/0222306 (hereinafter Mittendorf) and further in view of CHEVERTON et al. US 2015/0165683 (hereinafter CHEVERTON).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shi and Mittendorf does not explicitly teach:
the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to perform the additive processing on other objects of the plurality of objects other than the fifth object.
However, CHEVERTON teaches:
the control apparatus is configured to control the processing apparatus to perform the additive processing on other objects of the plurality of objects other than the fifth object ([0066] - - skip printing of the problematic part(s) but continue the build process with the printing of other parts).
Shi, Mittendorf and CHEVERTON are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Shi and Mittendorf, and incorporating skip printing problematic parts, as taught by CHEVERTON.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent further resource waste, as suggested by CHEVERTON ([0114]).
Claims 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US 2020/0238381 (hereinafter Shi) in view of Mittendorf US 2012/0222306 (hereinafter Mittendorf) and OTT US 2019/0358755 (hereinafter OTT) and further in view of Clark et al. US 2018/0056415 (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT does not explicitly teach:
the second measurement operation is performed before a pre-processing process is performed on at least one of the plurality of objects.
However, Clark teaches:
the second measurement operation is performed before a pre-processing process is performed on at least one of the plurality of objects ([0065] - - measure the part height before machining).
Shi, Mittendorf, OTT and Clark are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to machining a part.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Shi, Mittendorf and OTT, and incorporating measuring a part length before machining, as taught by Clark.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide accurate height of the final part, as suggested by Clark ([0069]).
Claims 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US 2020/0238381 (hereinafter Shi) in view of Mittendorf US 2012/0222306 (hereinafter Mittendorf) and further in view of Liu US 2010/0003619 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 63, the combination of Shi and Mittendorf teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shi and Mittendorf does not explicitly teach:
the control apparatus is configured to change the relative positional relationship between the object placement apparatus and the processing apparatus by controlling a movement apparatus configured to move the processing apparatus.
However, Liu teaches:
the control apparatus is configured to change the relative positional relationship between the object placement apparatus and the processing apparatus by controlling a movement apparatus configured to move the processing apparatus. ([0020] - - “moving the line laser print head in a direction perpendicular to the laser imaging line”; [0050] - - move the print head vertical position to accommodate the thickness of each powder layer).
Shi, Mittendorf and Liu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Shi and Mittendorf, and incorporating moving the processing apparatus, as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to accommodate the thickness of each powder layer, as suggested by Liu ([0050]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights