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
This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 11/22/2024.Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 11/22/2024 has been considered.
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: various “unit”, “module”, and “means of irradiation” in claims 1-15.
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.
Examiner notes “means of a correction function” of claim 4 does NOT invoke 112(f) for at least the reason that a correction function is merely a formula, which are devoid of any hardware.
Examiner, however, strongly recommends amend claim 4 so that “means of” language can be interpreted consistently throughout the claim set. This would help clarity.
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 13-14 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 13 is “a control device […] comprises a regulation device according to claim 11 and/or is designed to control the manufacturing device”. Therefore, BRI of claim 13 can completely exclude claim 11. Therefore, it would not be clear on the boundary of claim 13. This is clearly a drafting oversight and correction to claim language is requested.
Claim 14 is rejected based on dependency as claim refers to a control device according to claim 13. Therefore, any issues related to claim 13 would be incorporated with claim 14.
For 101 rejection, claims 13-14 are interpreted as dependent on claim 11. Art rejections will be provided for both scenarios above.
Alternatively, Applicant may consider canceling claim 13-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to “a computer program product”, which is later referred as “the program” (see preamble). Therefore, claim 15’s computer program product is broad enough to encompass software per se, which does not belong to any one of the four statutory categories. The analysis for claim 15 ends at step 1.
Examiner recommends canceling claim 15.
Claims 11-14 all passes step 1, their analysis continues below.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 11, with the exception of physical hardware, all the limitation of claim 11 can be mental processes. Examiner particularly notes these steps can be performed by collecting information, analyzing it, and display the result (e.g., generate output instructions to be displayed on a screen for an operator. See 0117 of PG-Pub of present application). For another example, these steps can be performed following steps described in Fig. 3 or Fig. 6 where a region is selected and observed to make decisions (e.g., add duration by 10%). Therefore, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Claims 13-14 recites the same abstract idea as their BRI covers scenario where they are dependent on claim 11.
Step 2A prong 2
Examiner notes, as shown above, claim 11’s scope ends at generating control data output, which can be part of abstract idea. The hardware’s identified above are additional elements but whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, they’re just used to describe the intended operating environment. Further, with the exception of “means of irradiation”, all the units are generic computer components discussed in high generality, which would also be mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 12-14 further includes machine learning model (claim 12), control device (claims 13-14) or irradiation device (claim 14) but they’re just being in existence without doing anything. They would be similarly analyzed as mere generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination.
Step 2B
As noted above, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 11-14 are nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not provide an inventive concept either and they are not eligible.
Examiner suggest actually implementing the physical of solidifying correction region based on respectively assigned correction factor. Such amendment would likely integrate the abstract idea into practical application in a manner similar to Diehre. Examiner also suggest consulting claim 1’s last step when making such amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1, 6-8, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelhauser (US 20200198010) in view of Buller (US 20190143412)
As per claim 1, Edelhauser discloses a method for regulating an irradiation in a manufacturing process for the additive manufacturing of objects, wherein building material is solidified layer by layer in a construction field in the form of object layers, corresponding to cross-sections of the objects to be manufactured, by means of irradiation of the building material, the method comprising the steps:
determining a plurality of shape-regions corresponding to each other in shape and/or size in the object layers to be solidified (0071, regions are arranged; see 0095, regions are regularly shaped),
selecting a number of reference-regions from the plurality of shape-regions, at least the remaining shape-regions being defined as correction-regions (0071 regarding inspection regions and solidifying regions),
determining a number of target-temperature maps which specify a desired heat distribution of correction-regions or a number of groups of correction-regions (0025, a desired temperature),
solidifying a number of selected reference-regions and recording spatially resolved temperature data of the number of reference-regions as they are solidified (0028),
solidifying at least the correction-regions based on the respectively assigned correction factor module (0028).
Edelhauser does not but Buller teaches generating a number of correction factor modules for the correction-regions from the temperature data and the target-temperature maps, wherein each correction factor module specifies spatially resolved correction factors for irradiation values or spatially resolved corrected irradiation values and assigns a correction factor module to each correction-region (0297, noting multiple printing process such as energy beam can be altered),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Bueller’s 3D printing process correction with Edelhauser’s regional additive manufacturing control for the purpose of improving quality of products.
As per claim 6, Edelhauser does not but Bueller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a correction factor module for a correction-region is generated depending on
the order of solidification of the correction-regions and/or
the position of the correction-region (0297 position sensor data is taken into account) and/or
support structures of the correction-region and/or
a time interval between two successive irradiation of an object in question.
The rationale to combine would persist.
As per claim 7, Edelhauser does not but Bueller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a correction factor module is determined from other correction factor modules by averaging (0111).
The rationale to combine would persist.
As per claim 8, Edelhauser does not but Bueller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a correction-region is selected as a reference-region during its solidification for generating a correction factor module, temperature data of this reference-region is recorded and this temperature data is used in a generation of a number of correction factor modules for solidifying other correction-regions (0297).
Claims 11, 13-15contains limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected over similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelhauser (US 20200198010) in view of Buller (US 20190143412), further in view of Roychowdhury (US 20230410412)
As per claim 12, Edelhauser/Buller does not but Ryochowdhury teaches the regulation device according to claim 11, comprising a machine learning model which has been trained (0042).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Ryochowdhury’s machine learning model with Edelhauser/Buller’s manufacturing device for the purpose of making better corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Edelhauser (US 20200198010)
Edelhauser discloses at least in Fig. 11 a control device for a manufacturing device for the additive manufacturing of objects, wherein the control device comprises a regulation device designed to control the manufacturing device (claim 13) and a manufacturing device for the additive manufacturing comprising at least an irradiation device for solidifying and a control device according to claim 13 (claim 14).
Please refer to above 112(b) rejection regarding claim interpretation for basis of the 102 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights