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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/22/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/22/23, 3/25/24 and 7/23/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: acquirer in claims 1 and 8, defect determiner in claims 1-3 and 6, defect repair instructor in claim 3, stop instructor in claim 5, manufacturing control instructor in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process involving compares the roughness data with a predetermined threshold for each small region, thereby determining whether a defect exists in the small region, wherein if an unmolten region is included in the small region, replaces data of the manufacturing surface in the unmolten region using data of the manufacturing surface in the small region, and determines whether a defect exists in the small region including the unmolten region, mathematical concepts involving divides the manufacturing surface into small regions each having a predetermined size, wherein the small region having the predetermined size is a region having a size 5 to 10 times a width of a molten pool, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of said acquirer acquires the roughness of the manufacturing surface based on surface image data obtained by capturing the manufacturing surface after the melting an acquirer that acquires roughness data indicating a roughness of a manufacturing surface after melting represent insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (claims 1 and 8). The defect determiner and non-transitory computer readable medium, computer (claims 1-2 and 11) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The defect determiner and non-transitory computer readable medium, computer are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “small regions” in claims 1-2, 10 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small regions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “small regions” in claims 1-2, 7, 10 and 11 as “regions”.
Claims 3-6 and 8, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiency of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190389130 to Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”), in view of translation of KR20200010683 to Kwon et al. (hereinafter “Kwon”).
As per claim 1, Richardson substantially discloses an information processing apparatus for controlling additive manufacturing of a powder bed method (Richardson, see [0020], [0040] and [0048]-[0049]), comprising:
an acquirer that acquires roughness data indicating a roughness of a manufacturing surface after melting (Richardson, see [0043]-[0045], it is noted that pits/bumps/uneven depth can be interpreted as roughness as claimed); and
a defect determiner that compares the roughness data with a predetermined threshold thereby determining whether a defect exists, defect being a characteristic of the manufacturing surface (Richardson, see [0043]-[0049]).
Richardson does not explicitly disclose divides the manufacturing surface into small regions each having a predetermined size and analyze data for each small region to determine characteristics in the small region.
However, Kwon in an analogous art discloses divides the manufacturing surface into small regions each having a predetermined size and analyze data for each small region to determine characteristics in the small region (Kwon, see Fig. 1 and pages 2-3, “splits the melt pool image 1 by position to extract the melt pool image 2 for each position”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kwon into the device of Richardson. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate and quantitative monitoring of the melt pool (Kwon, see page 2).
Claim10 is a method claim corresponds to the device claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11 is a CRM claim corresponds to the device claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Richardson further discloses a defect repair instructor that instructs remelting of a region that is determined by said defect determiner to have a defect (Richardson, see [0043]-[0049]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Richardson further discloses said defect repair instructor comprises a melting energy controller that controls a melting energy in remelting in accordance with a state of the manufacturing surface (Richardson, see [0043]-[0049]).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Richardson further discloses a manufacturing control instructor that, if it is determined by said defect determiner that a defect exists, instructs to control at least one selected from a group of a layer thickness of powder of a layer to be manufactured next and the melting energy in accordance with the defect (Richardson, see [0043]-[0049]).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Richardson further discloses wherein said acquirer acquires the roughness of the manufacturing surface based on surface image data obtained by capturing the manufacturing surface after the melting (Richardson, see [0043]-[0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20150024233 discloses apparatuses to fabricate additive manufactured parts with in-process monitoring are described. As parts are formed layer-by-layer, a 3D measurement of each layer or layer group may be acquired. The acquisition of dimensional data may be performed at least partially in parallel with the formation of layers. The dimensional data may be accumulated until the part is fully formed, resulting in a part that was completely inspected as it was built. The as-built measurement data may be compared to the input geometrical description of the desired part shape. Where the part fails to meet tolerance, it may be amended during the build process or rejected.
US20180015544 discloses a method for producing a body by means of an additive production method (AM) by using metal powder, comprising the following steps: designing the body in a computer-simulated manner while taking into account at least one region of the body to be processed and transferring data to an additive production device, in particular an additive powder-bed production device, successively providing the metal powder in order to construct powder layers arranged one on the other, successively hardening parts of the powder layers in order to form at least one specified structure in the powder layers arranged one on the other, wherein the structure is at least partially filled with metal powder of the powder layers, and calibrating a body, which is created by means of the structure, in the region to be processed. The invention further relates to a corresponding device, to a body produced in such a way, and to a computer program product for performing the method.
US20180186082 discloses various apparatuses, systems, software, and methods for three-dimensional (3D) printing. The disclosure delineates various optical components of the 3D printing system, their usage, and their optional calibration. The disclosure delineates calibration of one or more components of the 3D printer (e.g., the energy beam).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117