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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 27-45 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 30, 35, 42 and 44-45 are the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species of claim 6 in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants argue that “each variation concerns module parameters defining predetermined properties of interchangeable modules, and the control device uses those module parameters to control the corresponding modules” so that “[t]he variations . . . share the same module-parameter-based control architecture and form a single general inventive concept.” Applicants fail to address the reason for the conclusion as to lack of unity of the species. The Examiner argued “The different ‘control device’ configurations involve different technical features. For example, using a swivel arm type control parameter is a different technical feature from using altering print speeds based on build material properties. The claims are so expansive that they encompass vastly different control devices based on vastly different ‘parameters.’” Applicants fail to address this specific argument; thus, the species election is maintained.
Claims 7-9, 27-29, 31-34, 36-41 and 43 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretations
The claims are replete with intended uses that fail to distinguish the physical components of the “device.” For example, in claim 1, the following are intended uses:
“for the additive manufacturing of components”
“for directing a light beam onto a processing area”
“wherein the module can be moved along a rail device”
“in which module parameters can be stored”
“so that modules can be exchanged in the device for the additive manufacturing of components and these can be controlled by the control device, preferably without any further set-up procedure”
To avoid these interpretations, Applicants are encouraged to use “configured to” language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 30, 35, 42 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of the claims are so unclear and confusing that the Office cannot determine if the instant claims are patentable because it would require the Office to speculate as to the metes and bounds of the instant claims. See MPEP § 2173.06 (“Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”). Specifically, the claims contain incomprehensible language.
First, claim 1 contains numerous confusing terms and phrases. It states “so that modules can be exchanged in the device for the additive manufacturing of components and these can be controlled by the control device, preferably without any further set-up procedure.” It is not clear to what “these” refers. And preferably renders the scope unclear because it is not clear if what follows is required.
The same analysis applies to “preferably by means of selective melting or sintering” in the preamble; and claim 6. And the same analysis applies to “in particular” in claims 3 and 6.
Further, in claims 1, 30, 42 and 44, there is a function of the control device stated that renders the scope of the claims unclear. The control device “is set up and designed to control different modules using the module parameters, so that modules can be exchanged in the device for the additive manufacturing of components and these [modules?] can be controlled by the control device, . . . without any further set-up procedure.” Yet, it is entirely unclear what is a “set-up procedure” and what are the metes and bounds of this. The specification is completely silent as to what is this. Moreover, “set-up procedure” of what?
In claim 2, “a module” is confusing because a module already exists in claim 1. IS another module being introduced here? The same analysis applies to claim 3.
Claims 6, 8-9, 30, 35, 42 and 44-45 recite either “[a]n” or “[t]he” “additive manufacturing device of claim 1” or “claim 6,” yet claim 1 is not an additive manufacturing device; thus, its is unclear what is being claimed. Claim 1 is only a device intended for additive manufacturing.
Claim 6 contains numerous conflicting conjunctions. It recites both “and/or” and “and” between options, rendering the scope of the claim confusing.
Claim 6 also recites “a different” thing throughout, but fails to explain what is different from what. For example, “wherein the module parameters include a different number.” However, claim 1 does not require any numbers. Thus, it is unclear what is different from what.
In claim 30, the “local work requirements” are unclear because this is a vague phrase devoid of any meaning on its own, and is never defined in the specification. For example, local to what? Work of what? What is required, and how is this determined? The answers are nowhere to be found.
In claim 30, the “optimum configuration of modules” is unclear because no optimization is claimed. Specifically, optimum in what way, measured by what? For example, optimum configuration of modules to achieve shortest manufacturing time. Moreover, the “processing requirements” are never defined. What is “required”? It is entirely unclear. The same analysis applies to claim 35, where “the planning control unit is configured such that an optimized configuration is determined on the basis of the CAD data of the component to be manufactured.”
Prior Art
The closest art is DE102020107925, which discloses the same swivel arm light modules as claimed here. However, Under 35 U.S.C. § 102b1, it does not qualify as prior art because it is “[a] disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention” and “was made by the inventor or joint inventor.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights