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 .
Response to Amendment
Received 09/04/2026
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are pending.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-3 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 01/13/2023 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 09/04/2026
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive; as expressed below.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 5, ¶ 2-3), “Applicants also note the disclosure of a process controller 705 (Fig. 7), however, that controller also provides shape data to a printer 720 as does the control system 118 provide shape data to the printer 100. Thus, there does not appear to be disclosure a process controller (or other computer) that provides shape/material data to a computer that then forms a structural object by controlling a 3D printer.
Thus, it is unclear from the Office Action what element(s) of Jepeal are alleged to correspond to the claimed ‘test requester side computer’ from which the test conductor- side computer 118/302 receives shape data and material data of a work[piece. Therefore, Applicants respectfully request identification of the alleged ‘test requester side computer’ in Jepeal.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant fails to view the teachings of the prior art of Jepeal et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190076924 A1). Wherein, the control system (118 of Fig. 1) is configured to generate machine ready code (i.e. a program) that involves a database (120 of Fig. 1) which provided the control system data that indicates shape and material (emphasis added). Such that, the three-dimensional mode is data that indicates shape and leveling the material is data that indicates material (Jepeal; [¶ 0050]). Still further, the process, as taught by Jepeal et al., further teaches other parts of the fabrication that allow a processor/controller (705 of Fig. 7) to perform analysis that involves analyzing properties that incorporate geometry which is data that indicates shape data and materials which is data that indicates material (Jepeal; ¶ 0097). Thus, Applicant fails to view that data that indicates is broader than the claim language as inferred within the Remarks.
Therefore, Applicant arguments above fails to be persuasive.
The Examiner suggests better claiming the type of data obtained and/or to the relationship the control obtains the data.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 5, ¶ 4), “It is also stated in the Office Action that Jepeal discloses a "test device" that performs a test on a ‘pseudo workpiece’ (relying on paragraphs [0059]-[0061], [0063] and [0065]. The identified paragraphs relate to the debinding and sintering processes performed on the object (workpiece) formed by the 3D printer. Thus, it does not appear that Jepeal discloses a ‘pseudo workpiece’ as the meaning of that term would be understood by one of skill in the art upon reading the specification.1 Rather Jepeal merely discloses forming an object via a printer and then transporting that same object along a conveyor for debinding and sintering.
Further, in rejecting the claims, it is admitted in the Office Action that Jepeal fails to disclose that the ‘test device’ is configured to add, 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.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant fails to view the teachings of the prior art of Jepeal et al. As mended by Applicant given the subject matter of a fabrication machine it would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that the creating a workpiece that is artificial as in a copy (corresponding to pseudo). Wherein, Applicant’s arguments fail to the view the broad nature of the claim language. Additionally, the combination as a whole addresses the limitation(s) associated with the test piece.
Therefore, Applicant arguments above fails to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 5, ¶ 4), “Makino discloses performing an eddy current test using a surface-treated test object (test object M) and an untreated reference test object (reference test object S) (paragraphs [0055] and [0065] to [0069]). However, there is no description in Makino to the effect that these test objects are attached to each other to form a single piece (integrated).
In Makino, the reference test object is intended to obtain reference electromagnetic characteristics for observing how much the electromagnetic characteristics of the test object are changed by the surface treatment. That is, the test object and the reference test object are each an object to be subjected to the eddy current test, and it is meaningless to attach these test objects to each other to form a single piece (integrate the objects). For this reason, it cannot be determined from Makino that the test objects are attached to each other to form a single piece. Because the combination of references fails to disclose or suggest each of the claim elements, Applicants request the Examiner to reconsider and withdraw the above rejection.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant appears to infer limitations that are silent within claim 1. Wherein, claim 1’s language fails to recite attached objects.
Therefore, Applicant arguments above fails to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 3:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 7, ¶ 12), filed 09/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered, due the dependency upon claims 1 respectively. Wherein, the arguments are not persuasive, regarding reasons as addressed above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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:
Hocker (US PGPUB No. 20180001565 A1).
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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