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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepeal et al., US PGPUB No. 20190076924 A1, hereinafter Jepeal, and further in view of Makino et al., US PGPUB No. 20160341699 A1, hereinafter Makino.
Regarding claim 1, Jepeal discloses a test system (Jepeal; additive manufacturing (i.e. test) system [¶ 0024 and ¶ 0058-0060]) comprising:
a test conductor-side computer configured to obtain, from a test requester-side computer, shape data which indicates a three-dimensional shape of a workpiece and material data which indicates a material of the workpiece (Jepeal; additive manufacturing (i.e. test) system, as addressed above, comprises a test conductor-side computer [¶ 0079-0080 and ¶ 0082] configured to obtain shape data which indicates a 3D shape of a workpiece and material data which indicates a material of the workpiece from a test requester-side computer [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0097], as illustrated within Fig. 1);
a 3D printer configured to obtain the shape data from the test conductor-side computer (Jepeal; additive manufacturing (i.e. test) system, as addressed above, comprises a 3D printer configured to obtain the shape data from the test conductor-side computer [¶ 0036, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0058-0060], as illustrated within Fig. 1 and Fig. 3; moreover, printing device [¶ 0079-0081]), and form a structural object which has the three-dimensional shape that is indicated by the shape data (Jepeal; forming a structural object which has the 3D shape that is indicated by the shape data [¶ 0049 and ¶ 0058-0060], as illustrated within Fig. 1 and Fig. 3); and
a test device configured to perform a test on a pseudo workpiece which has been prepared (Jepeal; additive manufacturing (i.e. test) system, as addressed above, comprises a test device configured to perform a test/check on a pseudo workpiece which has been prepared to the structural object [¶ 0059-0061, ¶ 0063, and ¶ 0065]).
Jepeal fails to disclose adding, to the structural object, a test piece made of the material that is indicated by the material data having been obtained by the test conductor-side computer, adding, to the structural object, a test piece made of the material that is indicated by the material data having been obtained by the test conductor-side computer.
However, Makino teaches a test device configured to perform a test on a pseudo workpiece which has been prepared by adding, to the structural object, a test piece made of the material that is indicated by the material data having been obtained by the test conductor-side computer (Makino; a test device (i.e. surface property inspection) configured to perform a test on a pseudo workpiece which has been prepared by adding, to the structural object, a test piece made of the material that is indicated by the material data having been obtained by the test conductor-side computer (i.e. AC bridge and/or evaluation device) [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0059-0061]; additionally, test object [¶ 0065-0066] and reference test object [¶ 0067 and ¶ 0069]), which has the same shape as the workpiece, a part of which is made of the same material as the workpiece, and which has been surface-processed (Makino; a test piece [as addressed above] which has the same shape as the workpiece, a part of which is made of the same material as the workpiece [¶ 0055], and which has been surface-processed [¶ 0080-0081, ¶ 0084, and ¶ 0096-0099]).
Jepeal and Makino are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Jepeal, to incorporate a test device configured to perform a test on a pseudo workpiece which has been prepared by adding, to the structural object, a test piece made of the material that is indicated by the material data having been obtained by the test conductor-side computer, which has the same shape as the workpiece, a part of which is made of the same material as the workpiece, and which has been surface-processed (as taught by Makino), in order to provide an improved accuracy in surface property inspection (Makino; [¶ 0008-0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Jepeal in view of Makino further discloses the test system according to claim 1, wherein the test device (Jepeal; the test device [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]) includes:
a processing machine configured to perform surface processing on the pseudo workpiece (Jepeal; the test device, as addressed above, includes a processing machine [¶ 0049 and ¶ 0100] configured to perform processing on the pseudo workpiece [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0097]).
Makino further teaches to perform surface processing on the pseudo workpiece (Makino; performing surface processing on the pseudo workpiece [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0059-0061]); and
a measuring instrument configured to measure a surface condition of the pseudo workpiece which has been surface-processed (Makino; a measuring instrument configured to measure a surface condition of the pseudo workpiece which has been surface-processed [¶ 0032 and ¶ 0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Jepeal as modified by Makino, to incorporate to perform surface processing on the pseudo workpiece; and a measuring instrument configured to measure a surface condition of the pseudo workpiece which has been surface-processed (as taught by Makino), in order to provide an improved accuracy in surface property inspection (Makino; [¶ 0008-0009]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepeal, in view of Makino, in view of Sheng, and further in view of Levine et al., US PGPUB No. 20160257074 A1, hereinafter Levine.
Regarding claim 3, Jepeal in view of Makino further discloses the test system according to claim 1, further comprising:
the test requester-side computer (Jepeal; the test requester-side computer [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Jepeal in view of Makino fails to disclose the test requester-side computer configured to provide the test conductor-side computer with the shape data and the material data and to also obtain, from the test conductor-side computer, result data that indicates a result of the test, the result having been obtained from the test device by the test conductor-side computer; and
a 3D scanner configured to generate the shape data and provide the test requester-side computer with the shape data generated.
However, Sheng teaches the test requester-side computer configured to provide the test conductor-side computer with the shape data and the material data and to also obtain, from the test conductor-side computer (Sheng; the test requester-side computer configured to provide the test conductor-side computer with the shape data and the material data and to also obtain, from the test conductor-side computer, result data that indicates a result of the test, the result having been obtained from the test device by the test conductor-side computer [¶ 0031-0033 and ¶ 0037]; moreover, product mode [¶ 0041]), result data that indicates a result of the test, the result having been obtained from the test device by the test conductor-side computer (Sheng; result data that indicates a result of the test, the result having been obtained from the test device by the test conductor-side computer [¶ 0037 and ¶ 0041]).
Jepeal and Sheng are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Jepeal as modified by Sheng, to incorporate teaches the test requester-side computer configured to provide the test conductor-side computer with the shape data and the material data and to also obtain, from the test conductor-side computer, result data that indicates a result of the test, the result having been obtained from the test device by the test conductor-side computer (as taught by Sheng), in order to provide improved product quality (Sheng; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Jepeal in view of Makino and Sheng fails to disclose a 3D scanner configured to generate the shape data and provide the test requester-side computer with the shape data generated.
However, Levine teaches a 3D scanner configured to generate the shape data and provide the test requester-side computer with the shape data generated (Levine; a 3D scanner configured to generate the shape data and provide the test requester-side computer with the shape data generated [¶ 0029, ¶ 0038, and ¶ 0077]).
Jepeal in view of Makino and Sheng and Levine are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Jepeal as modified by Makino and Sheng, to incorporate a 3D scanner configured to generate the shape data (as taught by Levine), in order to provide quick and automated three-dimensional printing (Levine; [¶ 0001-0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights