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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 08/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-11 are withdrawn.
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.
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) are: "lighting means for illuminating" in claim 1, Lines 2-3 from bottom.
Because this claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 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 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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the region" in line 14 and “the building space side” in line 1 from bottom. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the distance" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item is pointed out. Claim 5 is indefinite.
Claims 2-7 depending on claim 1 are rejected as well.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Higashi et al. (US 8, 163,224).
Regarding claim 1, Higashi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, a calibration system for calibrating a building platform system arranged in a building space (e.g., item 2, Fig. 1(a) (i.e., the powder layer forming unit has the building space (col. 2, lines 60-67 and col. 3, lines 1-11))) of an additive manufacturing device (ABSTRACT), wherein the additive manufacturing device has a controllable laser for consolidating material during additive manufacturing on the building platform system (col. 3, lines 12-27 (e.g., items 31, 32, 33 and 34)), and wherein the calibration system comprises a calibration plate (item 4, Fig. 1(a) or 1(b) (i.e., a correction target (col. 3, line 24))) fixable on the building platform system and an optics module (col. 3, lines 12-27 (e.g., items 5, 51 and 52)), characterized in that
- the calibration plate consists of a predetermined base material (e.g., for the correction target 4, an acrylic or a thin steel plate may be used (col. 7, lines 22-24)), the calibration plate having a visible surface on one of its two flat plate sides, which is provided with a surface layer that contrasts in color with the base material (e.g., due to an oxidation process to the surface of the correction target), and
- the optics module comprises an optical detection unit (e.g., item 5, Fig. 1(a) or 1(b) (i.e., an imaging camera (col. 3, lines 22-23))), an optics holder and a support plate for covering the building space of the additive manufacturing device (i.e., as illustrated in Fig. 1(a) or 1(b), the x-y driving mechanism 51 moves the camera 5 to the positions (col. 3, lines 24-26)), wherein the optical detection unit is fastened by means of the optics holder to the support plate in the region of a light passage recess in the support plate for optical image capture of the calibration plate fixed on the building platform system, and wherein lighting means for illuminating the building space are attached to the support plate on the building space side (as shown in Figs. 7(a), 7(b) and 8; the equipment for metal-laser sintering process 1 comprises an illumination unit 8, and takes an image of the correction mark 7 with illumination by the illuminating unit 8. The illumination unit 8 is an incandescent lamp or LEDs (col. 5, lines 49-53)).
Regarding claim 5, Higashi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, the equipment for metal-laser sintering process 1 comprises an imaging camera 5 which takes image of a correction mark formed at a position of a correction target 4 (i.e., the calibration plate), an x-y driving mechanism 51 which moves the imaging camera 5 to positions at which it takes images, and an image processor 52 which processes the images taken by the imaging camera 5 (col. 3, lines 21-27).
Because the imaging camera in the teachings of Higashi is capable of determining the positions of the correction mark formed at the position of the correction target 4, the distance between the correction mark in the correction target and the imaging camera (as a distance sensor) will be determined a swell. Thus, Higashi discloses that, the optics module (i.e., including the imaging camera 5) has one or more sensors, wherein at least one of the sensors is a distance sensor (e.g., a camera) for detecting the distance of the calibration plate fixed on the building platform system to the optical detection unit attached to the building space.
Regarding claim 6, Higashi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, one or more reference mark carriers (item 41a or 41b, Fig. 5(a) or 5(b) (i.e., a counter bore 41a and a through hole 41b (col. 5, lines 7-8))), each with a reference marking (item 7, Fig. 5(a) or 5(b) (i.e., the correction mark 7 (col. 5, lines 2-4))), wherein the reference mark carriers can be fixed in a precise position on the building platform system, and wherein the calibration plate has reference mark recesses which, when the calibration plate is fastened to the building platform system, enable the optical detection unit to view the reference markings of the reference mark carriers fixed to the building platform system (as shown in Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 7, Higashi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, the calibration system has a calibration platform (item 41, Fig. 5(a) or 5(b) (i.e., correction plate 41 (col. 5, lines 5-6))) for fixing the calibration plate to the building platform system, wherein the reference mark carriers (i.e., item 41a or 41b) are installed in a precisely positioned manner on the calibration platform.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi et al. (US 8, 163,224) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-3, Higashi discloses that, for the correction target 4 (i.e., the equivalence to the calibration plate), an acrylic or a thin steel plate may be used (col. 7, lines 22-24). However, Higashi does not explicitly disclose the surface layer on the visible side of the calibration plate is an oxidic conversion layer or a burnished layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the surface layer on the visible side of the calibration plate is an oxidic conversion layer (e.g., due to the exposure of the steel plate (i.e., the calibration plate) to air) or a burnished layer in the calibration plate of Higashi thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the coating layer will provide the desired characteristics to the calibration plate.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi et al. (US 8, 163,224) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Auyeung et al. (US 9,685,102).
Regarding claim 4, Higashi discloses that, the equipment for metal-laser sintering process 1 comprises an illumination unit 8, and takes an image of the correction mark 7 with illumination by the illuminating unit 8. The illumination unit 8 is an incandescent lamp or LEDs (col. 5, lines 49-53). As illustrated in Fig. 8, the illumination unit 8 is disposed in the building space above the substrate 23. At least, like the imaging camera 5, the illumination unit 8 is capable of being attached to the support plate of the driving mechanism 51 (as shown in Fig. 1).
However, Higashi does not explicitly disclose that the emitting diodes of the LEDs in the illumination unit 8 are uniformly distributed.
In the same field of endeavor, LED lighting with uniform output, Auyeung discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 4A, the LEDs and optical elements are configured such that light from each LED is directed towards an area to be illuminated in a uniform pattern covering the aera (ABSTRACT, lines 1-3 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Higashi to have LED lighting as Auyeung teaches that it is known to have the emitting diodes of the LEDs in the illumination unit are uniformly distributed (e.g., as shown in Fig. 4A). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights