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 § 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.
Claims 11-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “a material supplier to supply a material of the metal additive manufactured products to a processing region”. Is the additive manufacturing process already performed or is the apparatus for additive manufacturing? The term “manufactured” would indicate that this has already taken place. However, it would appear based on the additional claim language that the manufacturing process has yet to be completed by the apparatus. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the basis" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “on the basis of an oxidation temperature of the materials”. What is meant by “on the basis”? Does this mean that a temperature set is determined based on an oxidation temperature of the material to be deposited? The Examiner does not understand what is being claimed and requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “an interpass temperature that is a temperature of a deposit, which is to be a material of products, or a substrate on which the deposit is deposited”. What is “to be a material of products”? Is this the deposited material during the additive manufacturing process? The Examiner does not understand what is being claimed and requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 11 refers to “processing” but the processing is not defined, so it is unclear what is involved in the processing. Is the processing the additive manufacturing process? Is it a heating process? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “supplying a material of the metal additive manufactured products to a processing region”. Is the additive manufacturing process already performed or is the apparatus for additive manufacturing? The term “manufactured” would indicate that this has already taken place. However, it would appear based on the additional claim language that the manufacturing process has yet to be completed by the apparatus. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the basis" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “on the basis of an oxidation temperature of the materials”. What is meant by “on the basis”? Does this mean that a temperature set is determined based on an oxidation temperature of the material to be deposited? The Examiner does not understand what is being claimed and requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “an interpass temperature that is a temperature of a deposit, which is to be a material of products, or a substrate on which the deposit is deposited”. What is “to be a material of products”? Is this the deposited material during the additive manufacturing process? The Examiner does not understand what is being claimed and requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 12 refers to “processing” but the processing is not defined, so it is unclear what is involved in the processing. Is the processing the additive manufacturing process? Is it a heating process? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “a material supplier to supply a material of the metal additive manufactured products to a processing region”. Is the additive manufacturing process already performed or is the apparatus for additive manufacturing? The term “manufactured” would indicate that this has already taken place. However, it would appear based on the additional claim language that the manufacturing process has yet to be completed by the apparatus. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the basis" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “on the basis of an oxidation temperature of the materials”. What is meant by “on the basis”? Does this mean that a temperature set is determined based on an oxidation temperature of the material to be deposited? The Examiner does not understand what is being claimed and requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “an interpass temperature that is a temperature of a deposit, which is to be a material of products, or a substrate on which the deposit is deposited”. What is “to be a material of products”? Is this the deposited material during the additive manufacturing process? The Examiner does not understand what is being claimed and requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 13 refers to “processing” but the processing is not claimed, so it is unclear what is involved in the processing. Is the processing the additive manufacturing process? Is it a heating process? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested the apparatus and method as claimed that included the controller limtiations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights