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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 Ln 1-3, please amend to -- wherein the at least one bead of material of the first part is connected to the at least one bead of material of the second part in such a manner as to form a continuous bead--.
Claim 9 Ln 1-2, please amend to --the [[first]] two first beads--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 2, and 4-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Throughout the claims there are a plurality of antecedent basis type issues.
For example, Claim 2 Ln 1-3 states the limitation "the first part of the second section is obtained by depositing a plurality of rectilinear beads of material”. Claim 1 Ln 13-15 previously states “at least one layer of material of the second section comprises a first part obtained by depositing at least one bead of material”. It is unclear if claim 2 is attempting to claim additional beads of material in addition to the at least one bead of material of claim 1, or are the rectilinear beads part of/the same as the at least one bead of material. This becomes additionally unclear when interpreting the beads as lying on different layers, as is possible due to the language of claim 1. For examination, the limitation of claim 2 was interpreted as: --the at least one bead of material of the first part of the second section is obtained by depositing a plurality of rectilinear beads of material--.
Another example, Claim 4 Ln 1-3 states the limitation "the second part of the second section is obtained by depositing a single bead of material”. Claim 1 Ln 13-15 previously states “at least one layer of material of the second section comprises … a second part obtained by depositing at least one bead of material”. It is unclear if claim 4 is attempting to claim an additional bead of material in addition to the at least one bead of material of claim 1, or is the single bead part of/the same as the at least one bead of material. This becomes additionally unclear when interpreting the beads as lying on different layers, as is possible due to the language of claim 1. For examination, the limitation of claim 4 was interpreted as: --the at least one bead of material of the second part of the second section is obtained by depositing a single bead of material--.
Another example, Claim 5 Ln 3-5 states the limitation "at least one layer of material of the second section is obtained by depositing: a first L-shape bead of material”. Claim 1 Ln 13-15 previously states “at least one layer of material of the second section comprises … a second part obtained by depositing at least one bead of material”.
It is unclear if claim 5 is attempting to claim an additional bead of material in addition to the at least one bead of material of claim 1, or is the first L-shaped bead part of/the same as the at least one bead of material. Claim 4 Ln 1-3 also states the limitation "the second part of the second section is obtained by depositing a single bead of material”.
It is additionally unclear if claim 5 is attempting to claim an additional bead of material in addition to the single bead of material of claim 4, or is the first L-shaped bead part of/the same as the single bead of material. This becomes additionally unclear when interpreting the beads as lying on different layers, as is possible due to the language of claim 1.
It is additionally unclear if the “first part” and the “second part” of Lns 3 & 4, respectively, are in addition to or distinct from the first and second parts cited in claim 1 Ln 14 and 16, respectively. A further issue with these ‘parts’ is that they are assigned different orientations (first or second direction) in claims 1 and 5.
For examination, the limitation of claim 5 was interpreted as: --the single bead of material of the at least one layer of material of the second section is obtained by depositing: a first L-shape bead of material--.
Another example, Claim 5 Ln 3-9 states the limitation "at least one layer of material of the second section is obtained by depositing: … a second L-shape bead of material”. Claim 1 Ln 13-15 previously states “at least one layer of material of the second section comprises … a second part obtained by depositing at least one bead of material”.
It is unclear if claim 5 is attempting to claim an additional bead of material in addition to the at least one bead of material of claim 1, or is the second L-shaped bead part of/the same as the at least one bead of material. Claim 4 Ln 1-3 also states the limitation "the second part of the second section is obtained by depositing a single bead of material”.
It is additionally unclear if claim 5 is attempting to claim an additional bead of material in addition to the single bead of material of claim 4, or is the second L-shaped bead part of/the same as the single bead of material. This becomes additionally unclear when interpreting the beads as lying on different layers, as is possible due to the language of claim 1.
It is additionally unclear if the “first part” and the “second part” of Lns 6 & 7, respectively, are in addition to or distinct from the first and second parts cited in claim 1 Ln 14 and 16, respectively. A further issue with these ‘parts’ is that they are assigned different orientations (first or second direction) in claims 1 and 5.
For examination, the limitation of claim 5 was interpreted as: --the single bead of material of the at least one layer of material of the second section is obtained by depositing: a second L-shape bead of material--.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 were given as examples of the plurality of antecedent basis type issues. Additional claims require consideration/amendment similar to as indicated above. Stated another way, any claim that appears to state additional beads requires consideration as above. A non-exhaustive list includes claim 7, 8, 10 and 11.
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 1-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ROWE; KYLE et al. US 20210046694 A1, hereinafter Rowe.
Regarding claim 1, Rowe discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) an additive method of manufacturing at least one intersection of a main rib (260) and a secondary rib (270) comprising:
stacking layers of material (220) to form the main rib and the secondary rib [0062],
wherein the main rib comprises at least one first section (260) that extends in a first direction (x-direction, see Fig. 3) between first and second ends (depicted right and left ends, respectively, Fig. 24) situated on respective opposite sides of the secondary rib,
wherein secondary rib comprises at least one second section (270) that extends in a second direction (y-direction, see Fig. 3) intersecting the first direction between first and second ends (depicted right and left ends, respectively, Fig. 24) , the second end of the second section being close to the first section,
wherein at least one layer of material of the first section is obtained by depositing at least one bead of material (as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may be comprised of a plurality of beads of material) that extends in the first direction and connects the first and second ends [0068],
wherein at least one layer of material of the second section comprises
a first part (272) obtained by depositing at least one bead of material at a distance from the first section that extends in the second direction and
a second part (271) obtained by depositing at least one bead of material adjacent to the first section that extends in the first direction.
Regarding claim 2, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) the first part (272) of the second section (270) is obtained by depositing a plurality of rectilinear beads of material parallel to the second direction (y-direction, as depicted in Fig. 3, each section may be comprised of a plurality of rectilinear/parallel beads).
Regarding claim 3, Rowe discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) at least one bead of material of the first part (272) is connected to at least one bead of material of the second part (271) in such a manner as to form a continuous bead (240G) [0159].
Regarding claim 4, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) the second part (271) of the second section (270) is obtained by depositing a single bead of material parallel to the first direction (x-direction, as depicted in Fig. 3, each section may be comprised of a plurality of rectilinear/parallel beads; furthermore, [0068] indicates that each section may be comprised of a single bead).
Regarding claim 5, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) at least one layer of material of the second section (270) is obtained by depositing:
a first L-shape bead of material that has
a first part (271) parallel to the first direction (x-direction) and adjacent to the first section (260) and
a second part (272) parallel to the second direction (y-direction) extending as far as the first end of the second section (depicted right end of (270)), and
a second L-shape bead of material that has a first part parallel to the first direction and adjacent to the first section and a second part parallel to the second direction extending as far as the first end of the second section, (as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may comprised of a plurality of beads of material) parallel to and adjacent to the second part of the first L-shape bead of material (as depicted in Fig. 3, each bead within a section is parallel to a respective part of a previous/subsequent bead within the section).
Regarding claim 7, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) the second part (272) of the second section (270) is obtained by depositing two beads of material parallel to each other and the first direction (x-direction, as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may be comprised of a plurality of beads of material).
Regarding claim 10, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) the second part of the second section is obtained by depositing three beads of material parallel to one another and to the first direction.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe in view of ELGAR; Yacov et al. US 20180281284 A1, hereinafter Elgar. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (additive manufacturing); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (production of ribs via additive manufacturing). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 6, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 5 except fails to explicitly state that the first and second L-shape beads of material are connected in such as a manner as to form a continuous bead.
Elgar discloses (Fig. 12) first and second beads of material are connected in such a manner as to form a continuous bead ([0213], as depicted, various structures or ribs are comprised of a plurality of ‘beads’ or machine paths of material disposition; (1210) depicts a ‘connected continuous bead’ and (1214) depicts an ‘unconnected discontinuous bead’ that are considered equivalent or substitutable).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (connected continuous bead) for another (unconnected discontinuous bead), and the results of the substitution (forming a structure/rib) would have been predictable. Because both Rowe and Elgar teach additively manufacturing structures/ribs, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute connected continuous bead for the unconnected discontinuous bead to achieve the predictable result of forming a structure/rib.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe in view of Chapiro; Michael R. et al. US 20190299522 A1, hereinafter Chapiro. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (additive manufacturing); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (production of ribs via additive manufacturing). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 13, Rowe discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1. Rowe further discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) a method of manufacturing a ribbed panel, the method comprising:
a first blanking phase that enables rib blanks to be obtained, including at least one intersection, with the additive method of manufacturing of claim 1 (as disclosed above, under claim 1, is a method for additively manufacturing rib blanks).
Rowe fails to explicitly state that the method further comprises: a second phase of machining the ribs to the finished dimensions.
Chapiro discloses (Fig. 2, 47) a first blanking phase that enables rib blanks to be obtained, including at least one intersection, with the additive method of manufacturing (at least Fig. 2 and 47 depict rib blanks, including at least one intersection, being obtained via additive manufacturing [0307]), and
a second phase of machining the ribs to the finished dimensions for the purpose of providing the required surface finish [0391].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Rowe, by providing the second phase, as taught by Chapiro, for the purpose of providing the required surface finish.
Regarding claim 14, Rowe discloses (Fig. 2, 47) a ribbed panel obtained from the method of manufacturing of claim 13 ([0062] states that the ribs may be placed on a panel and/or existing material, thereby forming a ribbed panel).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1. Rowe further discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) at least one layer of material of the second section (270) is obtained by depositing:
two first beads (as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may be comprised of a plurality of beads of material) of material (271) parallel to each other and to the first direction (x-direction) and adjacent to the first section (260), and
two second beads of material parallel to each other and to the second direction that extend from the first end of the second section as far as one of the first beads of material.
Rowe fails to explicitly state that the two first beads extend on respective opposite sides of the second end of the second section.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the two first beads and the second end of the second section. Although Rowe discloses two first beads, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Rowe to incorporate the details of the two first beads extend on respective opposite sides of the second end of the second section, along with the other claimed components of the additive method of manufacturing. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claim 9 depends upon claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, as far as is determinate, Rowe discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1. Rowe further discloses (Fig. 3, 4, 24, 25) at least one layer of material of the second section (270) is obtained by depositing:
two first beads (as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may be comprised of a plurality of beads of material) of material (271) parallel to each other and to the first direction (x-direction) , adjacent to the first section (260),
a second L-shape bead of material (as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may be comprised of a plurality of beads of material) having
a first part (272) parallel to the second direction (y-direction) that extends from the first end of the second section (depicted right end of (270)) as far as one of the first beads of material and
a second part (271) parallel to and adjacent to one of the first beads of material (as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may be comprised of a plurality of beads of material), and
a third bead (as depicted in Fig. 3, each section/layer may be comprised of a plurality of beads of material) of material parallel to and adjacent to the first part (271) of the second bead of material (270) that extends from the first end of the second section (depicted right end of (270)) as far as one of the first beads of material.
Rowe fails to explicitly state that the two first beads extend on respective opposite sides of the second end of the second section.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the two first beads and the second end of the second section. Although Rowe discloses two first beads, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Rowe to incorporate the details of the two first beads extend on respective opposite sides of the second end of the second section, along with the other claimed components of the additive method of manufacturing. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claim 12 depends upon claim11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 10,532,511 B2 discloses an additive method of manufacturing a ribbed panel.
US 20200079013 A1, US 20240131608 A1, US 20230124104 A1, CN 116213907 B discloses an additive method of manufacturing an intersecting rib.
WO 2019040795 A1 discloses a machining operation after an additive method of manufacturing operation.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745