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 .
Priority
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 uses the word “means,” and are 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:
(i) core portion forming control unit (claim 7),
(ii) shell portion forming control unit (claim 7), 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 limitation
(i) core portion forming control unit (claim 7),
(ii) shell portion forming control unit (claim 7), has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(i) core portion forming control unit (claim 7), US2025/0083254, figure 4, 0050, core portion forming control unit
(ii) shell portion forming control unit (claim 7), figure 4, 0050, shell portion forming control unit
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 recites “the outer part 13” which should be amended to “the outer part . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishida (US 2017/0106589).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Ishida teaches a production method for additive manufactured object (title, abstract), the method comprising: 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 (0107, the lasers L are radiated from the laser radiating sections 1300′ to form, as a first layer having large layer thickness corresponding to the first layer and the second layer having the small layer thickness) each size of which is corresponding to a first resolution (Figs 9E-9J, molten layers 310 (312), 0099, 0107, 0108, the molten layers 312…have thickness twice as large as the thickness of the molten layers 311); and a shell portion forming step of additively forming a shell portion as an outer portion (Figs 9K-9N, 0112, the molten layers 310 (311) having small layer thickness are formed) 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 higher than the first resolution after the core portion forming step (body O, 0114).
With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 5, Ishida teaches further comprising: a region specifying step of specifying a core region in which the core portion is to be formed (Fig 10, 0120, in step S120, data for each layer is created; 0123, 0124, when it is determined that the layer to be formed is the layer formed by the large dots, the processing proceeds to step S170) and a shell region in which the shell portion is to be formed with aiming at a final shape of the additive manufactured object before the core portion forming step (Fig 10, 0120, in step S120, data for each layer is created; 0123, 0124, when it is determined in this step that the layer to be formed is the layer formed by the small dots, processing proceeds to step S140), in the core portion forming step, the core portion is additively formed in the core region (molten layers 310 (312)) specified by the region specifying step, and in the shell portion forming step, the shell portion is additively formed in the shell region (molten layers 310 (311) specified by the region specifying step;
the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by laser welding (Figs 1A, 1B, laser radiating sections 1300, 0126) or electron beam welding.
With respect to the limitations of claim 7, Ishida teaches a production system for additive manufactured object, the system comprising: a welding head (Figs 1-4, laser radiating sections 1300, 0126; constituent-material discharging section 1230, 0141); and an additive forming control device (control unit 400, material supply controller 1500, laser controller 430, 0074, 0075, 0077) which is configured to control the welding head so that an additive manufactured object is formed by operating the welding head (0074), the additive forming control device includes: a core portion forming control unit (control unit 400) which is configured to control the welding head so that a core portion as an inner portion of the additive manufactured object is additively formed by stacking first weld beads (0107, the lasers L are radiated from the laser radiating sections 1300′ to form, as a first layer having large layer thickness corresponding to the first layer and the second layer having the small layer thickness) each size of which is corresponding to a first resolution (Figs 9E-9J, molten layers 310 (312), 0099, 0107, 0108, the molten layers 312…have thickness twice as large as the thickness of the molten layers 311); and a shell portion forming control unit (control unit 400) which is configured to control the welding head so that a shell portion as an outer portion (Figs 9K-9N, 0112, the molten layers 310 (311) having small layer thickness are formed) of the additive manufactured object is additively formed on a surface of the core portion by stacking second weld beads each size of which is corresponding to a second resolution higher than the first resolution after at least part of the core portion is additively formed (body O, 0114).
Claim 9 is similarly rejected as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ishida (US 2017/0106589) as applied to claims 1 and 7.
With respect to the limitations of claim 2, Ishida teaches the core portion forming step includes: an outer part forming step of forming an outer part of the core portion, which has the surface of the core portion, by stacking third weld beads (Figs 9G-9J, left most, stacked molten layers 310 (312)); and an inner part forming step of additively forming an inner part of the core portion inside the outer part by stacking the first weld beads each corresponding to the first resolution (central stacked molten layers 310 (312)) after the outer-skin forming step. Ishida disclose the claimed invention except for the third weld beads each corresponding to a third resolution higher than the first resolution.
However, Ishida discloses that the third weld beads each corresponding to a third resolution higher than the first resolution (0139, 0140, capable of discharging droplets of 50 pl, 100 pl, and 150 pl) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the additive production method of Ishida having a third weld bead resolution with the third weld beads each corresponding to a third resolution higher than the first resolution of Ishida for the purpose of discharging the droplets having a plurality of kinds of sizes (0140) based on the required properties of the additively manufactured part.
Additionally, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have the third weld beads each corresponding to a third resolution higher than the first resolution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable bead resolution ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 8 is similarly rejected as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ishida (US 2017/0106589) as applied to claims 1 and 7, further in view of Ryuichi (JP2021085662). A copy of Ryuichi (JP2021085662) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Ishida discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising: an accuracy determining step of determining the accuracy of the surface of the core portion at a time between the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step, the shell portion forming step is performed only when the accuracy is determined to be inappropriate in the accuracy determining step. However, Ryuichi discloses further comprising: an accuracy determining step of determining the accuracy of the surface of the core portion at a time between the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step (Figs 1-3, shape measuring sensors 41, 42, 0018; 0050, comparison unit 113 calculates the extent of any region where the cross-sectional shape 65 of the newly formed bead 243 does not reach the target cross-sectional shape, and determines that a region with insufficient material exists), the shell portion forming step is performed only when the accuracy is determined to be inappropriate in the accuracy determining step (0059, the path correction unit 103 sets a modified path setting that modifies the path setting to add a path to fill the missing material areas; 0061, 0062) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the additive production method of Ishida silent to an accuracy determining step with the further comprising: an accuracy determining step of determining the accuracy of the surface of the core portion at a time between the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step, the shell portion forming step is performed only when the accuracy is determined to be inappropriate in the accuracy determining step of Ryuichi for the purpose of providing a known accuracy determining step that allows for the detection and correction of errors in weld bead height of the additively manufactured part (0062)..
Claim 10 is similarly rejected as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ishida (US 2017/0106589) as applied to claims 1 and 7, further in view of Narayan (US 2018/0319097).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, Ishida discloses the claimed invention except for the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by arc welding. However, Narayan discloses the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step (Figs 4A-4C, 0048-0050) are performed by arc welding (electrodes 32, 0018, 0019) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the additive production method of Ishida using laser welding silent to arc welding with the core portion forming step and the shell portion forming step are performed by arc welding of Narayan for the purpose of using a known, alternative arc welding technique that is suitable for additive manufacturing to sequentially depositing material layer-by-layer to form a three-dimensional part (0006).
Claim 12 is similarly rejected as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/1/2026
Prosecution Insights