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 .
Examiner’s comment
Examiner noted that “an impurity” refers to “slag” in [0003] of specification of instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Gyotoku et al. (US 2019/0344388).
Regarding claim 16, Gyotoku et al. discloses “an additive manufacturing method for producing a manufactured object by depositing weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal” ([0001] The present invention relates to a projection forming method using laser metal deposition (hereinafter referred to as “LMD”). [0039] In the present embodiment, a LMD device … supply metal for the LIVID does not necessarily have to be the metal powder 92 and may be, for example, a wire), “the method comprising repeating the following three steps in the following order” (at least two of the below steps of can be repeated in order to form portions of 3D object):
“forming a bead layer in which the weld beads are arranged” (fig.4 shows a bead layer in which the weld beads (i.e., 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 21(2)) are arranged),
“identifying a region where an impurity is generated on a surface of the formed bead layer” (user can visually identifying a region where an impurity is generated on a surface of the formed bead layer. In this case, there is no impurity generated. [0066], i.e., Thus, defects, such as porosity, generated due to the incomplete melting of supply metal are not generated, and internal quality is stabilized. Examiner noted that “[an] impurity” is not defined by the claim. Thus, examiner interprets “an impurity” is the defects such as porosity. In this case “no impurity” or “porosity” is generated or presented so that there is no impurity), and
“estimating a thickness of the impurity in the identified region; wherein the method comprises selectively removing the impurity from the surface based on the estimated thickness of the impurity” (As for the limitation “estimating a thickness of the impurity in the identified region; wherein the method comprises selectively removing the impurity from the surface based on the estimated thickness of the impurity”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 17, Gyotoku et al. discloses the region is identified based on imaged information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the region is identified based on imaged information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 18, Gyotoku et al. discloses “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer” (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 19, Gyotoku et al. discloses “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer” (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 20, Gyotoku et al. discloses a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation,ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tkrepresents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more. (As for the limitation “a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation, ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tk represents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 21, Gyotoku et al. discloses a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation,ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tkrepresents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more. (As for the limitation “a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation, ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tk represents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 22, Gyotoku et al. discloses calculating a remaining area where the impurity remains on the surface of the bead layer after the removing step, wherein a thickness of the impurity in a bead layer next to the bead layer subjected to the removing is estimated based on the history information including the remaining area. (As for the limitation “calculating a remaining area where the impurity remains on the surface of the bead layer after the removing step, wherein a thickness of the impurity in a bead layer next to the bead layer subjected to the removing is estimated based on the history information including the remaining area”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 23, Gyotoku et al. discloses remaining area is calculated from image information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer after the removing step. (As for the limitation “remaining area is calculated from image information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer after the removing step”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 24, Gyotoku et al. discloses the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 25, Gyotoku et al. discloses thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 26, Gyotoku et al. discloses the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claims 27-30, Gyotoku et al. discloses the impurity includes slag. (As for the limitation “the impurity includes slag”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Claim(s) 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Yamashita (WO 8203351 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Yamashita discloses “an additive manufacturing method for producing a manufactured object by depositing weld beads formed by melting and solidifying a filler metal” (on page 8, i.e., the present invention is based on the use of a strip electrode to stabilize a wide welding bead without undercut or slag. And is suitable for a wide range of applications, such as reliable overlay welding, by submerged arc or electro slag. Abstract, i.e., forming a high quality, uniform welding bead without monitoring the molten pool effectively and it is thus suitable for efficient build-up welding by the rod electrode), “the method comprising repeating the following three steps in the following order” (at least two of the below steps of can be repeated in order to form portions of 3D object):
“forming a bead layer in which the weld beads are arranged” (on page 7, i.e., shown in Fig. 5, which is the next transition. Welded beads one by one. Fig.4 shows a bead layer (f)),
“identifying a region where an impurity is generated on a surface of the formed bead layer” (user can visually identifying a region where an impurity is generated on a surface of the formed bead layer. In this case, there is no impurity generated. Abstract, i.e., In order to overcome the problem that nothing can be done to prevent welding defects such as undercut, or slag inclusion. On page 8, i.e., the present invention is based on the use of a strip electrode to stabilize a wide welding bead without undercut or slag. As reading the reference as a whole, examiner understood the above cited passages is to prevent welding defect such as slag inclusion. Examiner noted that “[an] impurity” is not defined by the claim. Thus, examiner interprets “an impurity” is the defect such as slag. In this case, the present invention is to create welding bead without defect or slag inclusion), and
“estimating a thickness of the impurity in the identified region; wherein the method comprises selectively removing the impurity from the surface based on the estimated thickness of the impurity” (As for the limitation “estimating a thickness of the impurity in the identified region; wherein the method comprises selectively removing the impurity from the surface based on the estimated thickness of the impurity”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 17, Yamashita discloses the region is identified based on imaged information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the region is identified based on imaged information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 18, Yamashita discloses “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer” (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 19, Yamashita discloses “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer” (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is estimated based on history information, the history information including an area of the identified impurity on the surface of the bead layer, and the total number of the formed bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 20, Yamashita discloses a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation,ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tkrepresents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more. (As for the limitation “a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation, ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tk represents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 21, Yamashita discloses a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation,ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tkrepresents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more. (As for the limitation “a thickness ti of the impurity in an i-th layer of depositing is estimated as the following relation, ti=Xi X tk wherein ai represents a ratio, tk represents a thickness tk of the impurity in a k-th layer as a reference, i is an integer of 2 or more, and k is an integer of 1 or more”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 22, Yamashita discloses calculating a remaining area where the impurity remains on the surface of the bead layer after the removing step, wherein a thickness of the impurity in a bead layer next to the bead layer subjected to the removing is estimated based on the history information including the remaining area. (As for the limitation “calculating a remaining area where the impurity remains on the surface of the bead layer after the removing step, wherein a thickness of the impurity in a bead layer next to the bead layer subjected to the removing is estimated based on the history information including the remaining area”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 23, Yamashita discloses remaining area is calculated from image information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer after the removing step. (As for the limitation “remaining area is calculated from image information obtained from an image of the surface of the bead layer after the removing step”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 24, Yamashita discloses the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 25, Yamashita discloses thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claim 26, Yamashita discloses the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer. (As for the limitation “the thickness of the impurity is compared with a predetermined threshold after estimating the thickness of the impurity, wherein in a case where the thickness of the impurity is less than the threshold, an additional bead layer is formed, and in a case where the thickness of the impurity is equal to or greater than the threshold, the impurity is removed from the surface of the bead layer”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Regarding claims 27-30, Yamashita discloses the impurity includes slag. (As for the limitation “the impurity includes slag”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (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 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights