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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a light device to project light parallel to the calibration target” (Claim 3, Claim 5, Claim 14, Claim 16); a polarizer (Claim 4, 15); an additive manufacturing process or device (Claims 10, 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
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:
“Controller is configured to” (Claim 12-14, 16-17, 21)
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9, 11-13, 17, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) in view of JP 2017207520.
Claim 1
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) discloses method for scanning an object (See Fig. 1-2; a method in which devices are scanned to acquire three dimensional measurements, Para. 0075), comprising: providing a structured light three-dimensional scanner SLS (See Fig. 1-3; a high speed automated inspection system Ref. 100 in which device Ref. 99 is scanned with light to acquire three dimensional measurements, Para. 0074-0075, 0085), comprising: at least one imaging device having a lens (Fig. 3; scanning head Ref. 401 has an imaging lens Ref. 420, Para. 0082) and a controller (Fig. 1-3; computer controlled system Ref. 200, Para. 0078), wherein the at least one imaging device has a field-of-view (the field-of-view is 2.25 inches, Para. 0082, which is roughly 57.15 mm); capturing, by the at least one imaging device, images of the object to be scanned (Fig. 1-3; the computer controlled system Ref. 200 moves optical head Ref. 401 or device Ref. 99, Para. 0078, such that three images are taken of the same point on device Ref. 99, Para. 0080); and performing, by the controller, triangulation based on the images captured of the object to generate three-dimensional data of the object (Fig. 1-3; the computer controlled system Ref. 200 moves optical head Ref. 401 or device Ref. 99; Para. 0078, such that three images are taken of the same point on device Ref. 99 at different translations of the optical head Ref. 401 with respect to the device Ref. 99 so that the measured values can be shifted and converted to obtain the height of said point on device Ref. 99, para. 0080), wherein the three-dimensional data has a spatial resolution of 2 to 50 µm (the frequency of scanning and the magnification of the projection lens result in a three-dimensional scanning range resolution of 0.0001 inches (2.54 x 10-6), Para. 0083, which is roughly 2.54 µm and therefore between 2 to 50 µm).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
594
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm; capturing, by the at least one imaging device, calibration images of a calibration target having a predetermined pattern thereon; and calibrating, by the controller, the structured light three-dimensional scanner using the calibration images. JP 2017207520 shows that it is known to provide a method for scanning an object (a triangulation type shape measuring method, Pages 1-2, Para. 0001-0002), comprising: wherein the at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm (See Fig. 2; when the measurement object S is in the focal position of the system the visual field size is roughly 25 x 25 mm, Page 28, Para. 4, and is therefore less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm); capturing, by the at least one imaging device, calibration images of a calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S; measurement object) having a predetermined pattern thereon (Page 51-52; irradiation of the adjustment light to the measurement object S performed at regular intervals “images”); and calibrating, by the controller (CPU Ref. 210), the structured light three-dimensional scanner using the calibration images (Pages 51, Para. 6 thru Page 52, Para. 1; Changing the posture of the measurement object S based on the estimation of the difficult measurement region) for a device that measures a three-dimensional shape. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) with the at least one imaging device that has a fields of view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm; directing the at least one imaging device to capture calibration images of a calibration target, the calibration target having a predetermined pattern thereon; and calibrating the structured light three-dimensional scanner using the calibration images with the teachings of JP 2017207520 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring the highest accuracy and precision of scanning by aligning the object to be scanned prior to measuring the three dimensional properties, therefore improving the quality of the measurement data.
PNG
media_image4.png
356
292
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) discloses the at least one imaging device is a single imaging device (Fig. 3; detector 404 is the only imaging device in scanning head Ref. 401, Para. 0079);
the structured light three-dimensional scanner further comprises a projector (Fig. 3, Ref. 402; a method in which devices are scanned to acquire three dimensional measurements, Para. 0075, and comprises pattern projector Fig. 3, Ref. 402, Para. 0079); the method further comprises directing, by the controller (Fig. 2, Ref. 200), the projector (Fig. 3, Ref. 402) to project the predetermined pattern onto the target (Fig. 2, Ref. 99)(computer controlled system Ref. 200 directs the pattern projector Ref. 402 to emit a striped Moire-type pattern onto device Ref. 99, para. 0078-0079); and capturing, by the at least one imaging device (Fig. 3, Ref. 404), the images of the target (Fig. 3, Ref. 99) as the predetermined pattern (Fig. 3, Ref. 499) is projected on the target (Fig. 3, Ref. 99) by the projector (Fig. 3, Ref. 402).
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show the controller, the projector to project the predetermined pattern onto the calibration target; and capturing, by the at least one imaging device, the calibration images of the calibration target as the predetermined pattern is projected on the calibration target by the projector. JP 2017207520 teaches that it is known to provide the controller (CPU), the projector (Fig. 2, Ref. 110A, 110B) to project the predetermined pattern onto the calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S); and capturing, by the at least one imaging device (Fig. 2, Ref. 120), the calibration images of the calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S) (Page 51-52; irradiation of the adjustment light to the measurement object S performed at regular intervals “images”) as the predetermined pattern is projected on the calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S) by the projector (Fig. 2, Ref. 110A, 110B) for a three-dimensional shape measurement device. It would have been obvious to combine the device of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) with the projection pattern that is projected on the object for calibration as taught by JP 2017207520 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring the highest accuracy and precision of scanning by aligning the object to be scanned prior to measuring the three-dimensional properties, therefore improving the quality of the measurement data.
Claim 6
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) further discloses wherein capturing the calibration images of the calibration target further comprises: adjusting an exposure time of the at least one imaging device to perform overexposure while capturing the calibration images (Para. 201; the charge coupled device that is image detector Ref. 422 accumulated charge as the photodiodes are exposed to light until the timing controller removes the charge at the end of an imaging cycle, but if the values of the intensity collected by the charge coupled device is below a specified value, then the device will increase the exposure time thus overexposing the charge coupled device to obtain a higher intensity reading).
Claim 9
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) when modified by JP 2017207520 discloses the claimed invention except for the calibration target is approximately 4.5x6.0mm to 15x20mm (e.g. 5%). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teaches of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) in view of JP 2017207520 with the calibration target size listed above since it was well known in the art that such size is used for high-precision, small-field-of-view applications and its size ensures the target fills the camera frame, maximizing accuracy for mapping pixel coordinates. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 11
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) discloses at least one imaging device is a first imaging device (Fig. 7, Ref. 704A) and a second imaging device (Fig. 7, Ref. 704B).
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm. JP 2017207520 shows that it is known to provide the at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm (See Fig. 2; when the measurement object S is in the focal position of the system the visual field size is roughly 25 x 25 mm, Page 28, Para. 4, and is therefore less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm) for a three-dimensional shape measurement device. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) with the at least one imaging device has a fields of view collectively 50 x 50 mm with the teachings of JP 2017207520 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring a balance high-resolution with efficient coverage for small-to-medium sized objects, therefore improving the measurement data quality over different sized objects.
Claim 12
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) discloses a system for scanning an object (See Fig. 1-2; a system in which devices are scanned to acquire three dimensional measurements, para. 0075), comprising: providing a structured light three-dimensional scanner SLS (See Fig. 1-3; a high speed automated inspection system Ref. 100 in which device Ref. 99 is scanned with light to acquire three dimensional measurements, Para. 0074-0075, 0085); direct at least one imaging device having a lens (Fig. 3; scanning head Ref. 401 has an imaging lens Ref. 420, Para. 0082) and a controller (Fig. 1-3; computer controlled system Ref. 200, Para. 0078), wherein the at least one imaging device has a field-of-view (the field-of-view is 2.25 inches, Para. 0082, which is roughly 57.15 mm); direct the at least one imaging device, images of the object to be scanned (Fig. 1-3; the computer controlled system Ref. 200 moves optical head Ref. 401 or device Ref. 99, Para. 0078, such that three images are taken of the same point on device Ref. 99, Para. 0080); and performing, by the controller, triangulation based on the images captured of the object to generate three-dimensional data of the object (Fig. 1-3; the computer controlled system Ref. 200 moves optical head Ref. 401 or device Ref. 99; para. 0078, such that three images are taken of the same point on device Ref. 99 at different translations of the optical head Ref. 401 with respect to the device Ref. 99 so that the measured values can be shifted and converted to obtain the height of said point on device Ref. 99, para. 0080), wherein the three-dimensional data has a spatial resolution of 2 to 50 µm (the frequency of scanning and the magnification of the projection lens result in a three-dimensional scanning range resolution of 0.0001 inches [2.54 x 10-6], Para. 0083, which is roughly 2.54 µm and therefore between 2 to 50 µm).
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm; direct the at least one imaging device, calibration images of a calibration target having a predetermined pattern thereon; calibrate the structured light three-dimensional scanner using the calibration images. JP 2017207520 shows that it is known to provide a system for scanning an object (a triangulation type shape measuring method, Pages 1-2, Para. 0001-0002), comprising: wherein the at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm (See Fig. 2; when the measurement object S is in the focal position of the system the visual field size is roughly 25 x 25 mm, Page 28, Para. 4, and is therefore less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm); capturing, by the at least one imaging device, calibration images of a calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S; measurement object) having a predetermined pattern thereon (Page 51-52; irradiation of the adjustment light to the measurement object S performed at regular intervals “images”); and calibrating the structured light three-dimensional scanner using the calibration images (Pages 51, Para. 6 thru Page 52, Para. 1; Changing the posture of the measurement object S based on the estimation of the difficult measurement region) for a device that measures a three-dimensional shape. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) with the at least one imaging device has a fields of view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm; directing the at least one imaging device to capture calibration images of a calibration target, the calibration target having a predetermined pattern thereon; and calibrating the structured light three-dimensional scanner using the calibration images with the teachings of JP 2017207520 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring the highest accuracy and precision of scanning by aligning the object to be scanned prior to measuring the three dimensional properties, therefore improving the measurement data quality.
Claim 13
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) the at least one imaging device is a single imaging device (Fig. 3; detector 404 is the only imaging device in scanning head Ref. 401, Para. 0079);
the structured light three-dimensional scanner further comprises a projector (Fig. 3, Ref. 402; a system in which devices are scanned to acquire three dimensional measurements, Para. 0075, and comprises pattern projector Fig. 3, Ref. 402, Para. 0079); the system further comprises directing, by the controller (Fig. 2, Ref. 200), the projector (Fig. 3, Ref. 402) to project the predetermined pattern onto the target (Fig. 2, Ref. 99)(computer controlled system Ref. 200 directs the pattern projector Ref. 402 to emit a striped Moire-type pattern onto device Ref. 99, para. 0078-0079); and capturing, by the at least one imaging device (Fig. 3, Ref. 404), the images of the target (Fig. 3, Ref. 99) as the predetermined pattern (Fig. 3, Ref. 499) is projected on the target (Fig. 3, Ref. 99) by the projector (Fig. 3, Ref. 402).
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show the controller, the projector to project the predetermined pattern onto the calibration target; and capturing, by the at least one imaging device, the calibration images of the calibration target as the predetermined pattern is projected on the calibration target by the projector. JP 2017207520 teaches that it is known to provide the controller (CPU), the projector (Fig. 2, Ref. 110A, 110B) to project the predetermined pattern onto the calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S); and capturing, by the at least one imaging device (Fig. 2, Ref. 120), the calibration images of the calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S) (Page 51-52; irradiation of the adjustment light to the measurement object S performed at regular intervals “images”) as the predetermined pattern is projected on the calibration target (Fig. 2, Ref. S) by the projector (Fig. 2, Ref. 110A, 110B) for a device that measures a three-dimensional shape. It would have been obvious to combine the device of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) with the projection pattern that is projected on the object for calibration as taught by JP 2017207520 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring the highest accuracy and precision of scanning by aligning the object to be scanned prior to measuring the three-dimensional properties, therefore improving the measurement data quality.
Claim 17
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) discloses at least one imaging device is a first imaging device (Fig. 7, Ref. 704A) and a second imaging device (Fig. 7, Ref. 704B).
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) further discloses the controller is further configured to adjusting an exposure time of the at least one imaging device (Fig. 3, Ref. 404) to perform overexposure while capturing the calibration images (Para. 201; the charge coupled device that is image detector Ref. 422 accumulated charge as the photodiodes are exposed to light until the timing controller removes the charge at the end of an imaging cycle, but if the values of the intensity collected by the charge coupled device is below a specified value, then the device will increase the exposure time thus overexposing the charge coupled device to obtain a higher intensity reading).
Claim 20
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) when modified by JP 2017207520 discloses the claimed invention except for the calibration target is approximately 4.5x6.0mm to 15x20mm (e.g. 5%). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teaches of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) in view of JP 2017207520 with the calibration target size listed above since it was well known in the art that such size is used for high-precision, small-field-of-view applications and its size ensures the target fills the camera frame, maximizing accuracy for mapping pixel coordinates. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 22
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) discloses at least one imaging device is a first imaging device (Fig. 7, Ref. 704A) and a second imaging device (Fig. 7, Ref. 704B).
Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm. JP 2017207520 shows that it is known to provide the at least one imaging device has a field-of-view less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm (See Fig. 2; when the measurement object S is in the focal position of the system the visual field size is roughly 25 x 25 mm, Page 28, Para. 4, and is therefore less than or equal to 50 x 50 mm) for a three-dimensional shape measurement device. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Ulrich et al. (2002/0014577) with the at least one imaging device has a fields of view collectively 50 x 50 mm with the teachings of JP 2017207520 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring a balance high-resolution with efficient coverage for small-to-medium sized objects, therefore improving the measurement data quality over different sized objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10, 14-16, 18-19, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 3, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious capturing the calibration images of the calibration target further comprises: directing, by the controller, a lighting device to project light parallel to the calibration target, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claims 1. Claim 4 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowable subject matter in claims 1, 3.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious directing, by the controller, the projector to project light on the calibration target; and directing, by the controller, a lighting device separate from the projector to project light parallel to the calibration target, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claims 1, 2.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the calibration target is a substrate having the predetermined pattern formed thereon, and wherein the predetermined pattern is a checkerboard pattern, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claims 1. Claim 8 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowable subject matter in claims 1, 7.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious generating the three- dimensional data of the object during an additive manufacturing (AM) process in which another object separate from the object being scanned is formed, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the controller is further configured to direct a lighting device to project light parallel to the calibration target, and direct the first imaging device and the second imaging device to capture the calibration images of the calibration target as the lighting device projects the light parallel to the calibration target, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 12. Claim 15 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowable subject matter in claims 12, 14.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the controller is further configured to: direct the projector to project light on the calibration target; and direct a lighting device separate from the projector to project light parallel to the calibration target as the calibration images are captured by the first imaging device and the second imaging device, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claims 12, 13.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the calibration target is a substrate having the predetermined pattern formed thereon, and wherein the predetermined pattern is a checkerboard pattern, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 12. Claim 19 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowable subject matter in claims 12, 18.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an additive manufacturing (AM) device, wherein the controller is configured to generate the three-dimensional data of the object during an additive manufacturing process in which another object separate from the object being scanned is formed by the additive manufacturing device and communicate the three-dimensional data to the additive manufacturing device as the other object is formed, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 April 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights