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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Omiki et al. JP 2019063858.
Regarding claim 1, Omiki discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (Para. 1) for forming an inclined shaped object (Fig. 6B, Refs. 34A and 34B) on an additive target surface (Fig. 6B, Ref. 27) of a workpiece to which build material is to be added, the inclined shaped object being a shaped object inclined in an oblique direction oblique with respect to a vertical direction (Fig 6B), the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a material feeder to supply the build material to a machining area of the additive target surface (Fig. 1, Ref. 23); an emitter to emit a laser beam to the machining area to melt the build material (Fig. 5, Ref. 41; Para. 43 wherein the torch can be a laser); and control circuitry (Fig. 1, Ref. 15) to control formation of the inclined shaped object by controlling the material feeder and the emitter (Para. 18), wherein the control circuitry causes a lower bead layer to be stacked, and then causes an upper bead layer to be stacked (Para. 18 wherein the control unit drives the layer data and Para. 20 wherein the layers are stacked), the lower bead layer being a bead layer including a first bead (Fig. 8, Ref. 34A) and a second bead (Fig. 8, Ref. 34B) that are deposited, the upper bead layer being a bead layer including a third bead (Fig. 8, Ref. 34C) and a fourth bead that are deposited on a top surface of the lower bead layer (Fig. 8 ref. 34 and Para. 45 wherein the bead layers are not limited to three), the upper bead layer being stacked by causing the third bead to be formed on the top surface of the lower bead layer (Fig. 8 shows Ref. 34C stacked on 34B), and then causing the fourth bead to be formed at a position where part of a bottom surface of the fourth bead has no contact with the lower bead layer, the fourth bead being in contact with the top surface of the lower bead layer and with a side surface of the third bead (Para. 7 wherein the molten metal from subsequent layers fills in the space between previous beads; Para. 45 wherein the numbers of layers are not limited to three).
Regarding claim 2, Omiki discloses wherein the build material has a wire shape (Para. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Omiki discloses wherein the control circuitry causes a plurality of beads to be stacked on top of another to form the fourth bead (Para. 45 wherein the numbers of layers are not limited to three).
Regarding claim 8, Omiki discloses an additive manufacturing method (Para. 1) for forming an inclined shaped object (Fig. 6B, Refs. 34A and 34B) on an additive target surface (Fig. 6B, Ref. 27) of a workpiece to which build material is to be added, the inclined shaped object being a shaped object inclined in an oblique direction oblique with respect to a vertical direction (Fig 6B), the additive manufacturing method comprising: a material supply step of supplying the build material to a machining area of the additive target surface (Para. 16), by an additive manufacturing apparatus; and an emission step of emitting a laser beam to the machining area to melt the build material (Para. 43), by the additive manufacturing apparatus, wherein the additive manufacturing apparatus causes a lower bead layer to be stacked (Para. 6; Fig. 2), and then causes an upper bead layer to be stacked (Para. 6; Fig. 2), the lower bead layer being a bead layer including a first bead and a second bead that are deposited, the upper bead layer being a bead layer including a third bead (Fig. 2) and a fourth bead that are deposited on a top surface of the lower bead layer (Para. 45 wherein the numbers of layers are not limited to three), the upper bead layer being stacked by causing the third bead to be formed on the top surface of the lower bead layer, and then causing the fourth bead to be formed at a position where part of a bottom surface of the fourth bead has no contact with the lower bead layer, the fourth bead being in contact with the top surface of the lower bead layer and with a side surface of the third bead (Para. 7 wherein the molten metal from subsequent layers fills in the space between previous beads; Para. 45 wherein the numbers of layers are not limited to three).
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omiki et al. JP 2019063858 in view of Rowe et al. US 20210046694 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Omiki does not specifically disclose wherein the control circuitry causes the third bead to have a width in an extending direction shorter than a width of the fourth bead in an extending direction.
However in the same field of endeavor, Rowe teaches wherein the control circuitry causes the third bead to have a width in an extending direction shorter than a width of the fourth bead in an extending direction (Fig. 10 shows the three beads labeled 208 shorter than the fourth bead 211B).
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 modify the bead width of Omiki with that of Rowe to create a specific shape by segmenting the layers together (Rowe, Para. 96).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omiki et al. JP 2019063858 in view of Rowe et al. US 20210046694 A1 and in further view of O’Neill et al. US 10525688 B2.
Regarding claim 5, Omiki does not specifically disclose wherein the control circuitry causes laser output power for forming the third bead to be lower than laser output power for forming the fourth bead.
However in the same field of endeavor, O’Neill teaches wherein the control circuitry causes laser output power for forming the third bead to be lower than laser output power for forming the fourth bead (Col. 15, Lines 57-65 wherein it is taught that varying the power changes the porosity of the bead for the use case.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Omiki with O’Neill, by modifying the laser output power of Omiki, since the laser output power is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be selectively sinter the bead layers to control porosity of the structure. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Omiki does not specifically disclose wherein the control circuitry causes a scanning speed of the laser beam for forming the third bead to be higher than a scanning speed of the laser beam for forming the fourth bead.
However in the same field of endeavor, O’Neill teaches wherein the control circuitry causes a scanning speed of the laser beam for forming the third bead to be higher than a scanning speed of the laser beam for forming the fourth bead (Col. 15, Lines 57-65 wherein the scanning speed varies as needed to achieve the desired pore size and density. A person of ordinary skill would vary the scan speed through routine experimentation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Omiki with O’Neill, by modifying the laser scanning speed of Omiki, since the laser scanning speed is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be selectively sinter the bead layers to control porosity of the structure. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omiki et al. JP 2019063858 in view of Nakano et al. WO 2020079870 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Omiki does not specifically disclose wherein the control circuitry causes the third bead and the fourth bead to be formed using a ball-shaped bead.
However in the same field of endeavor, Nakano teaches wherein the control circuitry causes the third bead and the fourth bead to be formed using a ball-shaped bead (Para. 53 wherein the ball beads are accumulated).
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 modify the bead shape of Omiki with a spherical bead shape of Nakano to improve the shaping accuracy of the object (Nakano, Para. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights