DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/18/2026. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/24/2024 and 10/10/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s amended specification and abstract, filed 9/18/2026, are accepted.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites, “each of the core portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a first resolution, and … each of the shell portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a second resolution”. The “resolution” of a bead is interpreted as the size of the bead width: “the size of the bead width may be expressed as the resolution of the weld bead” (paragraph [0013] of Applicant’s filed specification).
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 5 and 6, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/292,472 in view of Sakai (US 2021/0094113).
The table below compares the claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application 18/292,468
Copending application 18/292,472
1. A production method for additive manufactured object, the method comprising:
a shell portion forming step of additively forming a shell portion as an outer portion of an additive manufactured object by stacking shell portion beads formed by weaving welding; and
a core portion forming step of additively forming a core portion as an inner portion of the additive manufactured object by stacking core portion beads formed by welding.
6. The production method according to claim 1, wherein in the core portion forming step, each of the core portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a first resolution, and
wherein in the shell portion forming step, each of the shell portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a second resolution higher than the first resolution.
7. The production method according to claim 1, wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by laser welding or electron beam welding.
8. The production method according to claim 1, wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by arc welding.
1. A production method for additive manufactured object, the method comprising:
a shell portion forming step of additively forming a shell portion as an outer portion of the additive manufactured object on a surface of the core portion by stacking second weld beads each size of which is corresponding to a second resolution
a core portion forming step of additively forming a core portion as an inner portion of an additive manufactured object by stacking first weld beads each size of which is corresponding to a first resolution;
second resolution higher than the first resolution after the core portion forming step.
(see claim 1)
5. The production method according to claim 1, wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by laser welding or electron beam welding.
6. The production method according to claim 1, wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by arc welding.
Claim 1 of copending application 18/292,472 does not recite forming the shell portion by weaving welding.
However, Sakai discloses forming a shell portion by weaving welding ("outer periphery-side blocking beads 101A" are formed [0073; Fig. 8]; "nozzle operation control portion 73 controls the weaving condition that adjusts the width or shape of the weld bead" [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include forming the shell portion by weaving welding. This is a known method of additively-manufacturing an object, applied to a known method, to yield predictable results.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites, “A production method for additive manufactured object.” Examiner suggests replacing with “A production method for forming an additive manufactured object.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai (US 2021/0094113).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a production method for additive manufactured object, the method comprising:
a shell portion forming step of additively forming a shell portion as an outer portion of an additive manufactured object by stacking shell portion beads formed by weaving welding ("outer periphery-side blocking beads 101A" are formed [0073; Fig. 8]; "nozzle operation control portion 73 controls the weaving condition that adjusts the width or shape of the weld bead" [0051]); and
a core portion forming step of additively forming a core portion as an inner portion of the additive manufactured object by stacking core portion beads formed by welding (Fig. 11, In the step S22A of forming inner beads, inner beads 102A (refer to FIG. 8), inner beads 102B (refer to FIG. 10), and inner beads 102C (refer to FIG. 11) are formed as the weld beads 100 so as to fill the space on the inside of the blocking beads 101A and 101B in the width direction Dw of the target surface Mf" [0078]).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
1130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 8 and 11 of Sakai
Regarding claim 2, Sakai discloses wherein the core portion forming step is performed after the shell portion forming step (Fig. 11, In the step S22A of forming inner beads, inner beads 102A (refer to FIG. 8), inner beads 102B (refer to FIG. 10), and inner beads 102C (refer to FIG. 11) are formed as the weld beads 100 so as to fill the space on the inside of the blocking beads 101A and 101B in the width direction Dw of the target surface Mf" [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, Sakai discloses wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by arc welding (“a step of forming blocking beads that are continuous along the outer peripheral shape of the modeled article by arc welding”; “a step of forming inner beads by arc welding” [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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2021/0094113) in view of Katogi et al. (US 2019/0377326).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai discloses wherein in the shell portion forming step, the shell portion is formed so that an outer surface of the shell portion is formed having an acute angle with respect to a horizontal plane (see annotated Fig. 1, below).
Sakai does not expressly disclose wherein an outer surface of the shell portion is formed in an overhang shape.
Katogi is directed to an additive manufacturing apparatus and method [Abstract]. Katogi discloses forming an additively-manufacturing object in an overhang shape (Fig. 21 shows wherein weld beads 33A are layered in an overhanging shape). Additionally, Fig. 1 of Sakai shows wherein an inner surface of the shell portion has an overhang shape.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein an outer surface of the shell portion is formed in an overhang shape. This allows for forming a final object having a desired shape. Additionally, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
PNG
media_image2.png
555
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sakai, annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
384
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 21 of Katogi
Regarding claim 7, Sakai does not expressly disclose wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by laser welding or electron beam welding.
Katogi discloses forming an additively-manufactured object having a shell portion (Fig. 19, “structure 31” [0107]) and a core portion (Fig. 19, “deposit 32” [0107]). The core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by laser welding (Fig. 19 shows “laser beam 20” [0102]; [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by laser welding or electron beam welding. Sakai discloses wherein the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by arc welding (Abstract of Sakai). Laser welding is a known, alternative method of forming an additively-manufactured object, applied to a known method, to achieve predictable results.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2021/0094113).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai does not expressly disclose wherein the shell portion forming step is performed after the core portion forming step.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the shell portion forming step is performed after the core portion forming step, because this would have been obvious to try. That is, there are three options for when the shell portion forming step is performed with respect to when the core portion forming step is performed: (1) before, (2) during, or (3) after. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing any of these three options to ultimately form an additively-manufactured object comprising a core and a shell.
Regarding claim 6, while Sakai discloses “adjust[ing] the width or shape of the weld bead” [0051], Sakai does not expressly disclose wherein in the core portion forming step, each of the core portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a first resolution, and wherein in the shell portion forming step, each of the shell portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a second resolution higher than the first resolution (note: the “resolution” of a bead is interpreted as the size of the bead width, as described in the claim interpretation section, above).
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein in the core portion forming step, each of the core portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a first resolution, and wherein in the shell portion forming step, each of the shell portion beads is formed so as to correspond to a second resolution higher than the first resolution, because this would have been obvious to try. That is, there are three options for the first resolution with respect to the second resolution (1) greater than, (2) equal to, or (3) less than. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing any of these three options to ultimately form an additively-manufactured object comprising a core and a shell.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2021/0094113) in view of Narita et al. (JP 2021-085662).
Regarding claim 5, Sakai does not expressly disclose a surface condition acquiring step of acquiring an unevenness of a surface of the core portion at a time between the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step, wherein in the shell portion forming step, the shell portion beads are formed while changing an inner peripheral end of a swing width of the weaving welding according to the unevenness of the surface of the core portion acquired by the surface condition acquiring step.
Narita is directed to a shape inspection device as part of an additive manufacturing device (“FIG. 2 is a diagram for explaining an outline of a modeling method by the LMD method” [page 3 of attached translation]; “In the following description, it is assumed that the three-dimensional modeling device 1 of some embodiments is a modeling device by, for example, an LMD (Laser Metal Deposition) method as an example of the DED method. That is, in the three-dimensional modeling apparatus 1 of some embodiments, the metal powder or the like which is the material of the three-dimensional laminated model (three-dimensional laminated model) is melted by irradiating it with an energy beam such as a laser beam to melt it” [page 3]). Narita discloses “a first shape measurement sensor that measures a first surface shape of a modeled object before forming a bead by melting the raw material powder with an energy beam; a second shape measurement sensor that measures a second surface shape of a modeled object after forming the bead; and an evaluation unit that evaluates the shape of the bead based on the first surface shape measured by the first shape measurement sensor and the second surface shape measured by the second shape measurement sensor” [Abstract]. Narita further discloses, “In the evaluation step S5, the evaluation unit 110 in the modeling control device 100 calculates the shape of the bead 21 in the bead shape calculation unit 111, and the shape of the bead 21 calculated by the bead shape calculation unit 111 in the comparison unit 113 and the target of the bead 21. Compare with shape. Then, in the evaluation step S5, the evaluation unit 110 in the modeling control device 100 determines whether or not the missing area exists in the comparison unit 113. .... If it is determined in the evaluation step S5 that the missing meat region exists, the step S11 is affirmatively determined and the process proceeds to the correction path setting step S7. In the correction path setting step S7, the path correction unit 103 of the modeling control device 100 sets the correction path setting, for example, as described with reference to FIGS. 8A to 8E, and returns to the first surface shape measurement step S1. If it is determined in the evaluation step S5 that the missing meat region does not exist, step S11 is negatively determined and the process proceeds to step S13” [page 14].
Given Narita’s disclosure of measuring a surface shape, and correcting the shape based on a determination that the present shape is incorrect, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a surface condition acquiring step of acquiring an unevenness of a surface of the core portion at a time between the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step, wherein in the shell portion forming step, the shell portion beads are formed while changing an inner peripheral end of a swing width of the weaving welding according to the unevenness of the surface of the core portion acquired by the surface condition acquiring step. This allows for achieving an additively-manufactured object having a desired shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0269352 is directed to an additive manufacturing method of forming a component with a shell portion and a core portion [Abstract], and including an overhang region [0002]. US 2020/0207069 and US 2019/0375049 are directed to additive manufacturing methods of forming components with a shell portion and a core portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights