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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are cancelled with claims 10-17 pending and considered for examination.
Drawings
It appears that Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The new claim 10 appears to be drafted by verbatimly inserting the subject of original claim 2 into original claim 1. However, in doing so, the format of claim 10 is awkward and can cause some confusion since it includes a dependent claim format by reciting redundant limitations. Similarly claims 16 and 17 are awkwardly drafted and the following amendments are suggested to prevent any further confusion and potential 112(b) issues:
10. (Currently Amended) A composite grinding machine, the machine comprising:
a holding unit that is configured to hold and rotate a workpiece;
an additive manufacturing unit that is configured to move with respect to the holding unit, and that fuses a material while supplying the material to a surface of the workpiece that is held by the holding unit, thereby causing adhesion of the material to the surface;
a grinding unit that is configured to move with respect to the holding unit, and that includes a grindstone and rotates the grindstone; [[and]]
a coolant supply unit that supplies a coolant to a portion where the workpiece held by the holding unit and the grindstone come into contact[[,]]; and
a protective unit that prevents the coolant from adhering to the optical equipment,
wherein the additive manufacturing unit includes an optical equipment used for adhesion of the material to the surface
16. (Currently Amended) The composite grinding machine according to claim 10, wherein:
the optical equipment includes a beam emitting unit that emits a light beam that fuses the material; and
the composite grinding machine further comprises a control unit that controls the
17. (Currently Amended) The composite grinding machine according to claim 10, wherein:
the optical equipment includes a beam emitting unit that emits a light beam that fuses the material; and
the composite grinding machine further comprises a detection unit that is configured to detect the coolant adhered to the surface, and
a control unit that controls output of the light beam for when causing adhesion of the material to the surface, based on a detection result by the detection unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 3, the limitation “workpiece and the grindstone come into contact, and the optical equipment” appears to include an extra “,” that may need to be deleted.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding claim 16, if Applicant’s intention is that the control unit controls the whole composite grinding machine, then such broad limitation cannot be included in the same claim with narrower limitation of control unit that controls the beam emitting unit.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a holding unit,” “an additive manufacturing unit,” “an optical equipment,” “a grinding unit,” “a coolant supply unit” and “a protective unit” in claim 10, “a pressurization unit” in claim 12, “a beam emitting unit” in claims 16 and 17, “a control unit” in claims 16 and 17, and “a detection unit” in claim 17.
The originally filed specification provides the following supports:
A holding unit 100 is described in paragraph [0011] to include a table 12, a headstock 13 and a tailstock 14 as shown in Figure 1.
An additive manufacturing unit 300 is described in paragraph [0022] which is movable in the Z-axial direction with respect to the holding unit 100 and includes a beam emitting unit 32 and a material supply unit 33 as shown in Figure 1. Beam emitting unit 32
A grinding unit 200 is described in paragraph [0015] includes a wheel spindle stock 20, a grinding wheel 21, a grindstone drive motor 22, a grindstone spindle 23, and a belt transmission mechanism 24 as shown in Figure 1.
A beam emitting unit 32 is described in paragraph [0023] to include an oscillating unit 34 and an optical system 35 as shown in Figure 2. The beam emitting unit 32 including the optical system 35 is optical equipment that is used to cause adhesion of a material to the surface Sw of the workpiece WP. The optical system 35 is illustrated int eh shape of a single convex lens.
A protective unit 500 is described in paragraphs [007] and [0008] to include a cover that has an opening and a lid portion configured to open and close the opening that covers the optical equipment. The protective unit further includes a pressurization unit configured to increase pressure of space between the cover that accommodates the optical equipment (Fig. 3).
A pressurization unit 57 is described in paragraph [0042] to specifically be a compressor.
A coolant supply unit 400 is described in paragraph [0010] includes a tank that stores the coolant CL, and a pump that feeds the coolant CL in the tank to the portion CP at which the workpiece WP and the grinding wheel 21 are in contact with each other.
A control unit 900 is described in paragraph [0031] includes a computer that includes a display 970 functioning as output device, a keyboard 980 functioning as an input device (Fig. 1) and CPU 940 that is a processor.
A detection unit 38 is described in paragraph [0029] to be an infrared camera (Fig. 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 13, lines 6-8, the limitation “and in which the optical equipment is situated, with respect to a component that is not the optical equipment out of components of the composite grinding machine, on a side opposite from the portion where the workpiece and the grindstone come into contact” is awkwardly worded. First, it appears the sentence is incomplete as there is no period mark “.” at the end of the sentence. Second, it is unclear what “and in which optical equipment is situated” is referring to. Third, it is unclear what exactly “a component that is not the optical equipment out of components of the composite grinding machine” is referring to.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 10, claims 13 as best understood, and claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 4,980,534, hereinafter “Okamoto”).
As applied to claim 10, Okamoto teaches a composite grinding machine comprising:
a holding unit (43/50/51/53/60/61) that is configured to hold and rotate a workpiece (1);
an additive manufacturing unit including an optical equipment (laser beam, col. 2, lines 54-68), used for adhesion of the material to the surface that is configured to move with respect to the holding unit, and that fuses a material while supplying the material to a surface of the workpiece that is held by the holding unit, thereby causing adhesion of the material to the surface;
a grinding unit that is configured to move with respect to the holding unit, and that includes a grindstone and rotates the grindstone (grinding machine 4 with grinding wheel 46, col. 3, lines 16-30);
a coolant supply unit (coolant nozzle 25) that supplies a coolant to a portion where the workpiece held by the holding unit and the grindstone come into contact; and
a protective unit (guard plate 26 with scraper 27) that prevents the coolant from adhering to the optical equipment (embodiment of Figures 5 and 6, paragraph bridging cols. 3-4; col. 4, lines 48-68; col. 5, lines 17).
As applied to claim 13, as best understood, Okamoto teaches the invention cited including the protective unit (guard plate 26 with scraper 27) prevents the coolant from adhering to the optical equipment (embodiment of Figures 5 and 6, paragraph bridging cols. 3-4; col. 4, lines 48-68; col. 5, lines 17). In addition, the protective unit (26/27) positioned such that is configured to selectively place the optical equipment (laser torch 23) in a first equipment layout in which the optical equipment is situated when the additive manufacturing unit causes adhesion of the material to the surface (left side of Figure 6), and in a second equipment layout in which the optical equipment is situated when the workpiece held by the holding unit is being ground by the grindstone (right side of Figure 6), and in which the optical equipment is situated, with respect to a component that is not the optical equipment out of components of the composite grinding machine, on a side opposite from the portion where the workpiece and the grindstone come into contact (left side is opposite of right side in Figure 6 where the grindstone 46 and workpiece 1 come in contact with one another).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 4,980,534, hereinafter “Okamoto”) in view of Srivatsan et al. (US 20120087647 A1, hereinafter “Srivatsan”).
As applied to claims 11-12, Okamoto teaches the invention cited including the protective unit includes a cover but does not explicitly teach wherein the cover that has an opening and a lid portion configured to open and close the opening, and that covers the optical equipment (intended us limitation, emphasis added); and the protective unit is configured to selectively place the lid portion in an open position in which the lid portion opens the opening, and the optical equipment takes in light or emits light through the opening when the additive manufacturing unit causes adhesion of the material on the surface, and in a closed position in which the lid portion closes the opening (as in claim 11, intended us limitation, emphasis added) and that wherein the protective unit further includes a pressurization unit configured to increase pressure of space within the cover that accommodates the optical equipment (as in claim 12, intended us limitation, emphasis added).
Srivatsan teaches a machine tool (paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0068], Fig. 2A) comprising an imaging portion (CCD cameras, paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0045], [0068], [0070], [0071]) for imaging a tool in an imaging area (intended use limitation); a tool holding unit (spindle, paragraphs [0005], [0068]) capable of holding the tool in the imaging area (intended use limitation); a shutter provided between a machining area and the imaging area (shutter 406, abstract, paragraphs Figs. 2B, 4B, paragraphs [0010], [0046], [0050]) and being movable between an open state and a closed state (intended use limitation); a cover (the camera shutter, paragraph [0071]) for covering a light-receiving surface of the imaging portion; and a purge mechanism (gas supplying unit, paragraphs [0010]-[0012]) for performing purge by causing fluid to flow between the light-receiving surface of the imaging portion and the cover, wherein (i) after the purge is performed by the purge mechanism, the machine tool (ii) moves the shutter, and (iii) moves the cover after start of moving of the shutter. In addition, Srivatsan teaches (paragraph [0010]) the enclosure includes a housing, a shutter mechanism, and a gas supplying unit. The housing is configured to house an imaging device and includes a transparent window. The shutter mechanism is disposed on the housing and the transparent window. Further, the shutter mechanism includes an opening formed therein and a shutter configured to cover the opening in a closed state and to uncover the opening to allow an image to be captured by the imaging device through the transparent window in an open state. The gas supplying unit is configured to supply gas to a space between the housing and the shutter mechanism such that gas is blown across the surface of the transparent window and purged out of the space through the opening when the shutter is in the open state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the cover of the protective unit of Okamoto with a cover having an opening and a lid portion configured to open and close the opening, and that covers the optical equipment; and the protective unit is configured to selectively place the lid portion in an open position in which the lid portion opens the opening, and the optical equipment takes in light or emits light through the opening when the additive manufacturing unit causes adhesion of the material on the surface, and in a closed position in which the lid portion closes the opening (as in claim 11) and that wherein the protective unit further includes a pressurization unit configured to increase pressure of space within the cover that accommodates the optical equipment (as in claim 12), as taught by Srivatsan, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “B”). The resulting composite machine would have a protective unit with a cover that would provide the opening and closing of the access opening to the optical equipment in a very precise and repeatable manner that would not only control the passage of the light to and from the optical equipment of the additive manufacturing unit to allow the adhesion of the desired amount of material onto the surface of the workpiece but also purging any undesirable debris or coolant from entering the optical equipment area that would result in adverse effect on the adhesion of the material onto the workpiece surface.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 4,980,534, hereinafter “Okamoto”) in view of Araki e al. (US 8,460,066, hereinafter “Araki”).
As applied to claim 14, Okamoto teaches the invention cited including the protective unit includes a cover configured to separate the portion where the workpiece and the grindstone come into contact from the optical equipment of the additive manufacturing unit. However, Okamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the protective unit is an air curtain configured to create an airflow between the portion and optical equipment.
Araki teaches a grinding machine having a cover (37) with a window hole (37a) located in the cover wherein machine components are protected from coolant and coolant mist by the air curtain generated by the blower fan (38, col. 10, lines 15-16 and 21-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ an air curtain int eh protective unit of Okamoto, as taught by Araki, as an effective means of protecting any debris and coolant mist from adhering onto the optical equipment that would result in less than desirable fusion quality of the material onto the workpiece surface.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 4,980,534, hereinafter “Okamoto”) in view of O’Reilly et al. (US 9,291,818, hereinafter “O’Reilly”).
As applied to claim 15, Okamoto teaches the invention cited including the protective unit configured to separate the portion where the workpiece and the grindstone come into contact from the optical equipment of the additive manufacturing unit. However, Okamoto does not explicitly teach the protective unit is provided on a surface of the optical equipment and is of a structure that repels the coolant.
O’Reilly teaches that it is well-known in the art of optical systems to provide a coating of oil (well-known to repel debris and water droplet which is considered as a coolant) on the surfaces of the lens and mirrors used in a laser machine (col. 6, lines 30-52, Figs. 5 & 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the protective unit of Okamoto on the surface of the optical equipment in a form of a coating, as taught by O’Reilly, as an effective means of protecting the optical equipment (i.e., laser lens) from any coolant and other debris that would degrade the quality of the fusion of material onto the workpiece.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 4,980,534, hereinafter “Okamoto”) in view of Min Sung Wook et al. (KR20140022982A, hereinafter “Min”).
As applied to claim 16, Okamoto teaches the invention cited including the composite grinding machine including the coolant supply unit, the optical equipment including a beam emitting unit that emits light beam that fuses the material. Okamoto further teaches that, prior to the additive manufacturing unit causing the adhesion of the material to the surface of the workpiece, any coolant remaining on the upper surface of the workpiece that has been grinded is blown away by means of the air blower (84,col. 5, lines 55-58). However, Okamoto does not explicitly teach the composite grinding machine further includes a controller unit that controls the beam emitting unit to emit light beam to the coolant adhered to the workpiece prior to causing adhesion of the material to the surface such that at least part of the coolant adhered to the workpiece evaporates (intended use limitation, emphasis added).
Min teaches (embodiment of Figure 5) that it is well-known in the art of machine tools to use a controller (800) to control the laser light source (100) of a coolant removal unit (500) to irradiate a surface of the workpiece that has been worked on with a laser beam to evaporate any residual coolant material that has remained on the workpiece surface during the earlier process in order to prepare the workpiece surface for any subsequent process step without having any surface quality degradation (see English Machine Translation, page 4, paragraphs 6-11, paragraph bridging pages 4-5, page 5, first full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a controller to control the beam emitting unit of Okamoto to emit light beam to any coolant adhered to the workpiece prior to causing adhesion of the material to the surface such that at least part of the coolant adhered to the workpiece evaporates, as taught by Min, as an effective means of preparing the workpiece surface for the subsequent step without subjecting the workpiece surface to a temperature drop that would reduce the quality of the fused material on the workpiece surface.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the blower of the Okamoto with a controller to control the beam emitting unit to emit light beam to any coolant adhered to the workpiece prior to causing adhesion of the material to the surface such that at least part of the coolant adhered to the workpiece evaporates, as taught by Min, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “B”). The resulting composite machine would have a coolant removal unit that would provide the surface of the workpiece free of any residual coolant in a very precise and repeatable manner that would prepare the workpiece surface for the subsequent step without subjecting the workpiece surface to a temperature drop that would reduce the quality of the fused material on the workpiece surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome any claim objections 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 17, the prior art appears to teach all the claimed elements of the composite grinding machine including a beam emitting unit that emits a light beam that fuses the material but does not explicitly teach or fairly a detection unit that is configured to detect the coolant adhered to the surface, and a control unit that controls output of the light beam for when causing adhesion of the material to the surface, based on a detection result by the detection unit, in combination with the rest of claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mori et al. (US 10,888,923) teaches a manufacturing machine is capable of additive manufacturing. The manufacturing machine includes: a connecting part configured to be connectable to a machine tool capable of subtractive manufacturing; and an additive manufacturing head configured to be positioned in a machining area of the machine tool and discharge a material, when the connecting part is connected to the machine tool. The manufacturing machine for additive manufacturing that can be installed at a low cost is thus provided (abstract).
Ushijima et al. (US 20210069970A1) teaches a machining apparatus, includes a table to fix a workpiece; a spindle head having a spindle to which a cutting tool is attachable; a guide arranged on the spindle head and extending in parallel with an axis of the spindle; an additive manufacturing head arranged on the guide and to release an additive material and energy in parallel with the axis; a driving device to move the additive manufacturing head in parallel with the axis to move the additive manufacturing head close to the table; a supply device to supply the additive material and energy to the additive manufacturing head; and a moving device to relatively move the spindle head together with the manufacturing head to the table (abstract).
Yun et al. (US 20190283161A1) teaches a system for removing one or more three-dimensional workpieces manufactured in additive manufacturing environment from a substrate plate is disclosed. The system includes an adjustable support tooling apparatus, a grinder, a cut-machining device, a work tank, a wire discharge machine and coolant pump filtration system. The adjustable support tooling apparatus is supporting a three-dimensional workpiece while it is being detached from a substrate plate by cutting device. The adjustable support apparatus of the present disclosure is also easily adaptable to various weights and geometric of workpiece. The improved substrate plate preparation machine in additive manufacturing enables to complete a job at one place, wherein the job is cutting the work piece and grinding the uneven cut surface of the substrate plate, thereby the ground substrate plate can be reused (abstract).
Mezawa et al. (US 20170008123A1) teaches a manufacturing machine is a manufacturing machine capable of additive manufacturing. The manufacturing machine includes an additive-manufacturing head configured to be movable in a machining area and to discharge material powder toward a workpiece and irradiate the workpiece with an energy beam; and a powder chute configured to be movable in the machining area and to receive material powder discharged from the additive-manufacturing head toward the workpiece and failing to attach to the workpiece. There is provided the manufacturing machine configured in the above-described manner to be capable of efficiently collecting material powder having failed to attach to the workpiece during additive manufacturing.
Feied et al. (US 20230191543A1) teaches a spatially coherent machine for manufacturing comprises, in one example, a workpiece holder configured to secure a workpiece, a toolholder with at least one axis of motion control configured to perform a subtractive machining operation on the workpiece using a machining tool, a heating element configured to perform a heating operation on the workpiece, and a forming element configured to perform a forming operation in which force is applied to the workpiece in an amount that causes plastic deformation of the workpiece material. The workpiece holder secures the workpiece during the heating, forming, and subtractive operations such that the forming and subtractive operations are performed in a spatially coherent manner (abstract).
Sanders et al. (WO2021055803A1) teaches methods, systems, and apparatus, including medium-encoded computer program products, for computer aided design and manufacture of physical structures using hybrid additive and subtractive manufacturing include, in one aspect, a method including: obtaining data for 3D geometry of a part; simulating at least a portion of a manufacturing process that includes adding first material in a first stage and removing second material in a second, subsequent stage, where the second material includes a portion of the first material, removing the second material includes blending between the material added in the first and second stages, and thermal effects of adding and removing the material in the first and second stages is simulated; and adjusting an amount of the portion based on results of the simulating to prevent deviation of the part from the three dimensional geometry that results in not enough material being available for the blending (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 09/25/2026
