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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 01/15/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-7, 10-11 and 13-14 has /have been amended, claims 15-28 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-28 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-28 are as follow.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitation “a controller… control the measurement system” has/have 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 “controller” coupled with functional language “control the measurement system” and 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, claims 1 and 15 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: Under Spec. Page 7, Fig 1, a controller 600 including these systems that has overall control of shaping apparatus 100.
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.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US 2002/0041818 A1) in view of Katayama (US 2005/0280709 A1) and Jones et al. (US 2015/0140230 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Abe et al. disclose a shaping system (METHOD OF AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, title) comprising:
a table (a sintering table 20, Fig 1, [0064]);
a measurement system (a camera 64 for obtaining image data on the sintering table 20 and an alignment program to be executed by the controller 60, [0096], Fig 17) that includes a sensor and that is configured to acquire three-dimensional shape information of a target surface of a workpiece (the camera 64… obtaining image data thereof and detecting the contour line, [0099], Fig 18B; clearly camera 64 can “acquires three-dimensional shape information of a target surface of a workpiece” as claimed) located on the table (see Fig 1),
a beam shaping system that has a beam irradiation section which emits a beam (irradiating a laser emitted from a laser beam generator 30, [0064], Fig 1) and a material processing section which supplies shaping material (suction nozzle 51 acts as a discharge means for discharging unsintered powder or swarf, Fig 11, [0087]) to be irradiated by the beam from the beam irradiation section (see Fig 11), the beam shaping system performing shaping by forming a molten pool on the target surface with the beam (a high density upon melting of most of the powder material therein, [0072]); and
a controller (a controller 60 for controlling the above-described units and devices, [0096], Fig 17);
wherein the controller is configured to (i) control the measurement system to measure the three-dimensional shape information of the target surface (image data of the marked position is obtained by the camera 64, [0099]), on which a first shaping is to be applied by the beam shaping system (paths are prepared from three-dimensional CAD data designed in advance to indicate the desired shape, [0068]), after the workpiece has been placed on the table and before applying any shaping to the workpiece (Clearly, the controller capable of process the shaping “after the workpiece has been placed on the table and before applying any shaping to the workpiece” as claimed), and then (ii) control the beam shaping system to perform the first shaping by setting an irradiation area of the beam on the target surface (an optical beam (laser beam) Lis irradiated on a desired portion of the first powder layer 10 to sinter it, [0065], Fig 2) and then forming the molten pool at the set irradiation area on the target surface with the beam based on 3D data of a three-dimensional shaped object (have a high density upon melting of most of the powder material therein, [0072]; making a three-dimensional object, Abstract) which is to be formed on the target surface and the three-dimensional shape information of the target surface that was measured before applying any of the shaping (path for laser irradiation is substantially the same as that in the conventional shaping method… contour data are added with laser irradiation conditions (the scanning speed, spot diameter, power and the like) to create new data, which are in turn delivered to the finishing process, [0069], obtaining image data thereof and detecting the contour line… so that the laser irradiating position may be coincident with the position on the surface of the base 22 where sintering is to be commenced, [0099], clearly, the controller capable of making a three-dimensional shaped object “which is to be formed on the target surface and the three-dimensional shape information of the target surface that was measured before applying any of the shaping” as claimed).
Abe et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except did not disclose: the sensor including a stereo camera that images the target surface from more than one imaging angle; and the beam shaping system is a Directed Energy Deposition (DED)-type beam shaping system;
Katayama teaches a measurement system (calibration tool, see Title) that includes a sensor (Note: “a measurement system that includes a sensor” taught by already), the sensor including a stereo camera (a stereo camera system, [0027. 0079], Fig 4) that images the target surface from more than one imaging angle (a multi-view stereo camera system, [0080]. Note: “images the target surface” taught by Abe et al. already);
Jones et al. teach a beam shaping system is a Directed Energy Deposition (DED)-type shaping system (the processing head 200 may be utilized to provide other processes… including additive manufacturing, 3D printing, and directed energy deposition, Fig 2, [0137, 0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abe et al. with Katayama’s further teaching of the sensor including a stereo camera that images the target surface from more than one imaging angle; because Katayama teaches, in [0016], of providing an excellent stereo camera that image measurement can be performed while performing image capture and calibration alternately while allowing the camera to track or enlarge the object; and further modify Abe et al. in view of Katayama with Jones et al.’s further teaching of the beam shaping system is a Directed Energy Deposition (DED)-type shaping system; because Jones et al. teach, in [0007], of providing a machine tool with a clamping mechanism and different processing heads for processing convenience during operation.
Regarding Claims 16-28, Abe et al. in view of Katayama and Jones et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and further teach: Claim 16, wherein the three-dimensional shape information is three-dimensional shape information of at least a part of the target surface (depicting how to form a plurality of sintered layers on a base with camera 16, Figs 17 and 18A-18D, [0056-0057, 0096 and 0099], Abe et al.).
Claim 17, wherein the measurement system measures, as the three-dimensional shape information, a three-dimensional shape of the target surface (camera 64 is a three-dimensional measuring machine a desired three-dimensional CAD model, Fig 17, [0096], Abe et al.).
Claim 18, wherein the shaping system is configured to control a position and an attitude of the target surface of the workpiece held by the table under a reference coordinate system (a sintering table 20 is driven by a drive unit 5, [0064], Abe et al.), and
the shaping system is configured to correlate the position and the attitude of the target surface with the reference coordinate system, based on the measured three-dimensional shape information (obtaining image data thereof and detecting the contour line… so that the laser irradiating position may be coincident with the position on the surface of the base 22 where sintering is to be commenced, [0099], Abe et al.).
Claim 19, wherein the measurement system measures three-dimensional shape information of at least a part of a surface of a part added on the target surface by the shaping while keeping the workplace to which the shaping is applied loaded on the table (obtaining image data thereof and detecting the contour line… so that the laser irradiating position may be coincident with the position on the surface of the base 22 where sintering is to be commenced, [0099], Abe et al.).
Claim 20, wherein the measurement system measures a three-dimensional shape as the three-dimensional shape information of at least the part of the surface of the part added on the target surface by the shaping (obtaining image data thereof and detecting the contour line… so that the laser irradiating position may be coincident with the position on the surface of the base 22 where sintering is to be commenced, [0099], Abe et al.).
Claim 21, wherein the shaping system is configured to acquire a dimension error of the part added based on the three-dimensional shape information that has been measured (controller 60 detects the deviation between the coordinates of the base 22 and those of the optical beam irradiating system to correct it, [0096, 0099], Abe et al.; clearly, controller 60 capable of “acquire a dimension error of the part added based on the position information that has been measured” as claimed).
Claim 22, wherein the shaping system is configured to use the dimension error to make a pass/fail additive manufacturing (the controller 60 detects the deviation between the coordinates of the base 22 and those of the optical beam irradiating system to correct it, [0096, 0099], Abe et al.; clearly, controller 60 capable of “use the dimension error to make a pass/fail additive manufacturing” as claimed).
Claim 23, wherein the shaping system is configured to apply corrective processing using the beam to the workpiece that resulted in failure on the pass/fail decision while the table remains holding the workpiece, based on the dimension error (controller 60 for controlling the above-described units and device… an alignment program to be executed by the controller 60, [0096], Abe et al.).
Claim 24, wherein shaping is applied by the DED-type beam shaping system to the target portion on the target surface including the part added, based on the three-dimensional shape information of at least the part added (controller 106 which controls the position of the machining-head 102 as it processes the workpiece 104 [0134]; the processing head 200 may be utilized to provide other processes… including additive manufacturing, deposition- including 3D printing, and directed energy deposition, 0180], Fig 2, Jones et al.).
Claim 25, wherein the target surface includes at least a part of the surface of the table having a position and an attitude that are controlled under a reference coordinate system (a sintering table 20 is driven by a drive unit 5, [0064], Abe et al.), and
the shaping system is configured to correlate the position and the attitude of the target surface with the reference coordinate system, based on the three-dimensional measured shape information (controller 106 which controls the position of the machining-head 102 as it processes the workpiece 104 [0134], Jones et al.).
Claim 26, wherein the workpiece is a three-dimensional shaped object made of a plurality of layers which are laminated (see Abstract, Abe et al.), and
the shaping system is configured to repeatedly perform the shaping to a target portion on the target surface for each of the layers, based on laminated cross section data for multiple layers acquired from 3D data of the three-dimensional shaped object (see Title and Abstract, Abe et al.).
Claim 27, wherein after the measurement system (a camera 64 for obtaining image data on the sintering table 20, [0096], Fig 17, Abe et al.) measures the three-dimensional shape information of at least a part of a surface of the workplace, the shaping system is configured to start the shaping by forming the molten pool on the target portion on the target surface of the workpiece (to have a high density upon melting of most of the powder material therein, [0072], Abe et al.) based on the three-dimensional shape information and data for each of the layers (obtaining image data thereof and detecting the contour line, [0099], Abe et al.), and
the data for each of the layers is generated before starting the shaping by forming the molten pool on the target portion on the target surface of the workpiece and is generated by performing a slicing process on a part that is to be additively built by the shaping (obtaining image data thereof and detecting the contour line… so that the laser irradiating position may be coincident with the position on the surface of the base 22 where sintering is to be commenced, [0099], Abe et al.).
Claim 28, wherein the controller is configured to control the table (sintering table 20 is driven by a drive unit 5 so as to move up and down, [0064], Abe et al.)
and the DED-type beam shaping system (a controller 106, [0134], Fig 1, Jones et al.) based on the 3D data of the three-dimensional shaped object which is to be formed on the target surface and the three-dimensional shape information of the target surface that was measured before applying any of the shaping by the DED-type beam shaping system (controller 106 which controls the position of the machining-head 102 as it processes the workpiece 104, [0134], Fig 1, Jones et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the closest prior art references of record Abe et al. (US 2002/0041818 A1) in view of Jones et al. (US 2015/0140230 A1) teach a shaping system as claimed; however, none of the prior art of record anticipate or render obvious “the measurement system including "(a) an irradiation section that irradiates the target surf ace with a light-beam having a projection pattern, and (b) the sensor that detects the light-beam having the projection pattern reflected from the target surface by imaging the target surface from a direction different from a light irradiation direction of the light-beam onto the target surface from the irradiation section” as claimed; and it would not be obvious to modify any prior art to obtain the claimed limitations. As such, claim 1 is allowed. With respect to Claims 2-14; the dependency on claim 1 make them allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims have been considered but are moot because of the updated rejection with new prior art made of record.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. 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.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761