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 .
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 § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 28-29 and 31, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2017/0297160 A1) in view Phillips (US2022/0212263 A1) and alternatively in view of Tanaka (US5948292 A).
Regarding claim 28, Matsushita discloses a CNC machine for additive manufacturing by laser welding [0003], comprising: a workpiece [0058] support configured to be moved in an x-y-plane along an x-axis and a y-axis [0058];
Matsushita doesn’t explicitly disclose a counterbalance configured to move opposite to the workpiece support and the counterbalance being arranged on a carriage. Phillips discloses using counterbalance to reduce imbalance effect [0583]. As for wherein the carriage can be rotated by at least 90°C about a c-axis that is lying in or parallel to the x-y-plane, Phillips discloses rotating the table through an axis or rotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an counterbalance taught by Phillips into the apparatus taught by Matsushita for the benefit of reducing the imbalance effect.
Matsushita teaches an x-axis drive for moving the workpiece support along the x-axis and moving the counterbalance in opposite direction, the x-axis drive, the workpiece support, an a-axis drive arranged on the carriage and operable to rotate the workpiece support about an a-axis that is perpendicular to the x-y-plane [0058].
a gantry drive (23) for moving the carriage along the y-axis [0035];
Matsushita teaches a laser [0014]. As for adapted to be moved along a z-axis that is perpendicular to the x-y-plane, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Further, analogous Tanaka, discloses the laser beam being movable in the z-direction (laser machining head position in the Z-axial direction column 2 lines 9-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a laser beam movable in the z-direction since it is conventionally well known. "The combination of familiar elements according to known configures is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 29, Matsushita teaches the carriage can be rotated by at least 180 about the c-axis [0108].
Regarding claims 31 Matsushita does not explicitly disclose wherein the x-axis drive comprises a pair of synchronous drives and wherein each drive of the pair of synchronous drives comprises a linear motor including a moving secondary part. However, analogous art, Tanaka et al, discloses synchronously driven by x-axial servo motor (column 9 lines 44-47). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pair of synchronous drives and wherein each drive of the pair of synchronous drives comprises a linear motor including a moving secondary part since it is within skillset of one ordinary skill in the art. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 33, Matsushita does not explicitly disclose wherein the x-axis drive moves the counterbalance via a traction drive mechanism. However, Matsushita’s structure is similar to the applicant’s structure and thus, has similar properties. Therefore, the claimed physical properties implicitly would have been achieved by the structure as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II)). Therefore, it would be implicitly that the x-axis drive moves the counterbalance via a traction drive mechanism.
Regarding claim 34, Matsushita discloses wherein the x-axis drive is enclosed by a conveyor belt that is moving with the workpiece support (figure 1).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2017/0297160 A1) in view Phillips (US2022/0212263 A1) and alternatively in view of Tanaka (US5948292 A), as applied to claim 28, and further in view of Romero et al (US 5,117,348)
Regarding claim 30, Matsushita doesn’t explicitly disclose the a-axis drive is a torque drive. Analogous art, Romero discloses a-axis in the torque (column 6 lines 45-52). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an a-axis in the torque since it is conventionally well known and creates precision (column 6 lines 42-52).
Claim(s) 32 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2017/0297160 A1) in view Phillips (US2022/0212263 A1) and alternatively in view of Tanaka (US5948292 A), as applied to claim 31, with supporting evidence from Linear Synchronous Motors (see NPL)
Regarding claim 32, Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the synchronous drives comprises a linear motor including a moving secondary part. However, NPL, Linear Synchronous Motor discloses it is common for synchronous drives to comprise a linear motor (see paragraph under structure of Linear Synchronous Motors) including moving secondary part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pair of synchronous drives and wherein each drive of the pair of synchronous drives comprises a linear motor including a moving secondary part since it is within skillset of one ordinary skill in the art. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 35, Matsushita doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein the a-axis drive is arranged below the workpiece support and between the pair of synchronous drives. However, MPEP 2144.04 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the a-axis drive is arranged below the workpiece support and between the pair of synchronous drives since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 36, Matsushita depicts wherein the c-axis is arranged parallel to the x-axis (figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights