DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to European Patent Application No. 21183727.3, filed on 7/5/2021.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
‘wherein the primary machine sensor and the redundant machine sensor are read out and respective readings of the primary machine sensor and the redundant machine sensor compared’ should read ‘wherein the primary machine sensor and the redundant machine sensor are read out and respective readings of the primary machine sensor and the redundant machine sensor are compared’ (claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, this claim recites ‘(iv) applying a logic AND-function with checked sensor readings as input each with a result of the primary algorithm as input and with a result of the backup algorithm as input, respectively, wherein a manufacturing process of the system is only maintained when the logic AND-functions read out “true” and wherein, when the logic AND-functions read out “false”, the process is aborted’ and the specification fails to describe how these limitations are performed. Paragraph [0062] of the specification recites similar language to claim 1 but does not describe how the sensor readings (analog measurements) are used in a logic AND-function (digital/discrete) or which specific ‘checked sensor readings’ the AND function is performed with. Paragraph [0063] describes 4 individual ‘exemplary values’ but which, if any, of these the AND function is performed with or how they are converted to logical values is not described.
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites ‘wherein a conditional is implemented, to which checked sensor readings are put in and, only if a threshold of sensor values is exceeded, the process is interrupted and/or repaired, otherwise, the process is continued’ and depends from claim 1 that recites steps (i)-(iv) including the algorithm check. While the specification describes the conditional in Fig. 3, the instant specification fails to describe how this conditional functionality is related to steps (i)-(iv) recited in claim 1.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/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.
With regard to claim 1, this claim recites ‘providing a machine control unit of an additive manufacturing system’ and it is unclear what ‘providing’ is intended to convey. It appears that the machine control unit is merely being used.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘the sensor readings’ for which there is no clear antecedent basis.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘checked sensor readings’ and it is not clear how these readings relate to the previous ‘sensor readings’.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘applying a logic AND-function with checked sensor readings as input each with a result of the primary algorithm as input and with a result of the backup algorithm as input, respectively’ and it is not clear how a sensor reading (analog measurement) is utilized with a logic (discrete/digital) function. Further, the meaning of ‘checked sensor readings as input each with a result of the primary algorithm as input and with a result of the backup algorithm as input’ is completely unclear; e.g. it is, at least, not clear what each of these elements is input to. Furthermore, the precise meaning of ‘respectively’ is not clear in this context.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘a logic AND-function’ and then ‘the logic AND-functions’ (plural) and it is not clear if these are related. There is no antecedent basis for ‘the logic AND-functions’ (plural).
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘the system’ for which there is no clear antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 3, this claim recites ‘detect a process anomaly, such as a hot spot…’ and is thus indefinite because it is not possible to ascertain the scope of the claim, see MPEP § 2173.05.
With regard to claim 8, this claim recites ‘the backup algorithm resembles the primary algorithm’ and is thus indefinite because it is not clear what the metes and bounds are of ‘resembles’, see MPEP § 2173.05.
With regard to claim 10, this claim recites ‘the process is either… interrupted and/or repaired’ that appears to contradict the recitation of the process being ‘maintained’ in independent claim 1.
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites ‘checked sensor readings’ and it is not clear if these are the same ‘checked sensor readings’ previously recited. Further, the claim recites ‘if a threshold of sensor values is exceeded’ and it is not clear what is intended to exceed the ‘threshold of sensor values’. In addition, this claim recites ‘the process is interrupted and/or repaired’ that appears to contradict the recitation of the process being ‘maintained’ in independent claim 1.
In addition, claim 11 is indefinite because it fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention. The relationship between the conditional, that is essential to the invention based on Fig. 3 and related text in the instant specification, and the rest of the invention (e.g. as recited in claim 1) is entirely missing from the claim. See MPEP 2172.01.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend and none of the dependent claims provide a cure for the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ausserlechner et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110270553 discloses a sensor system with redundant sensors and algorithm checks.
Higuchi U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120310484 discloses a redundant sensor system that utilizes an AND function.
Moiseev et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130293217 discloses a system to detect shifts in redundant sensors.
Schafer et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070282459 discloses a sensor monitoring system utilizing redundant processing of sensor data.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights