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
The action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 01/09/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, where claims 1 and 11 are independent.
This application claims the continuation benefit of the Appl. No. 16/242194 filed on 01/08/2019 and 17/724704 filed on 01/09/2025 incorporated herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2025 has been filed on the filing date of the application. The submission is in-compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Multiple filed related applications
Applicants have filed multiple related applications. To date, some of the related applications have been allowed or under NOA and it appears that some related applications are stand pending, yet to be examined. There are plurality of co-pending related Applications. and double patenting is proper. See MPEP 804 and 1490 (VI) D:
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. See MPEP § 804 and 1490 (VI) D.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1 of USP No. 12,222,838 B2 (Appl. No. 17/724704 and Pub. No. 2020/0245048 A1). The subject matter claimed in the instant application and the patent are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/014557
USP No. 12,222,838 B2 (Appl. No. 17/724704 and Pub. No. 20200245048)
Title:
System And Methods For Generating Fault Indications For An Additive Manufacturing Process Based On A Probabilistic Comparison Of The Outputs Of Multiple Process Models To Measured Sensor Data
System And Methods For Generating Fault Indications For An Additive Manufacturing Process Based On A Probabilistic Comparison Of The Outputs Of Multiple Process Models To Measured Sensor Data
Claim 1. A method for generating fault indications for an additive manufacturing machine based on a comparison of the outputs of multiple process models to measured sensor data, the method comprising:
receiving, via a communication interface, sensor data comprising one or more sensor values from one or more sensors of the additive manufacturing machine during an additive manufacturing process to manufacture at least one part; computing, for respective ones of a plurality of models, a probability density function defining a probability that a selected set of the sensor data matches an output of a corresponding one of the plurality of models; and outputting an indication of a defined condition being present during the additive manufacturing process, the defined condition corresponding to a selected one of the plurality of models, wherein the selected one of the plurality of models has at least a specified probability that the selected set of the sensor data matches the output of the selected one of the plurality of models.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor associated with an additive manufacturing machine, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving, via a communication interface, sensor data comprising one or more sensor values from one or more sensors of an additive manufacturing machine during an additive manufacturing process to manufacture at least one part; computing, for respective ones of a plurality of models, a probability density function defining a probability that a selected set of the sensor data matches an output of a corresponding one of the plurality of models; and
outputting an indication of a defined condition being present during the additive manufacturing process, the defined condition corresponding to a selected one of the plurality of models, wherein the selected one of the plurality of models has at least a specified probability that the selected set of the sensor data matches the output of the selected one of the plurality of models.
Claims 2-20 are also parallel to claims 1-20 of USP No. 12,222,838 B2 (Appl. No. 17/724704 and Pub. No. 2020/0245048 A1) and the claims of 11,327870 B2 (Appl.# 16/242194 and Pub. #2020/0218628 A1).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (as shown in the table for comparison) because they are conceptually or inherently similar to the limitations of the patent (as for example the limitation “computing, for respective ones of a plurality of models, a probability density function defining a probability that a selected set of the sensor data matches an output of a corresponding one of the plurality of models; and outputting an indication of a defined condition being present during the additive manufacturing process, the defined condition corresponding to a selected one of the plurality of models” of the application is equivalent to the limitation “computing, for respective ones of a plurality of models, a probability density function defining a probability that a selected set of the sensor data matches an output of a corresponding one of the plurality of models; and outputting an indication of a defined condition being present during the additive manufacturing process, the defined condition corresponding to a selected one of the plurality of models” of the patent) in scope and they use the similar limitations and produce the similar end result of monitoring indications of additive manufacturing process.
It would be therefore obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that to modify or to omit the additional elements of claim 1 of the patent to arrive at the claims 1 and 11 of the instant application, would perform the similar functions as before.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. A terminal disclaimer is required to overcome the obviousness-type double patenting rejection. However, this is very close to statutory type double patenting rejection. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a statutory type double patenting rejection]. See MPEP § 804 and 1490 (VI) D:
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a statutory type double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP 804 (II)(A) “- claims may be differently worded and still define the same Invention”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 along with the respective dependent claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting and/or 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, i.e., as a whole and 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record:
Dave, et al. USPGPub No. 20170090462 A1 discloses a method for monitoring photons of an additive manufacturing device to predict metallurgical, mechanical and geometrical properties of a part produced during an additive manufacturing operation.
McDonnell, et al. USP No. 10657447 B1 discloses a method includes plurality of features determining one or more characteristics of input data set adjusting one or more architectural parameters of an automated model generation process.
Penny, et al. USPGPub No. 20190118300 A1 discloses a method for additive manufacturing providing sensing and control during printing three-dimensional object obtaining accurate temperature readings of material(s) after depositing the material(s) during a manufacturing process.
Cheverton, et al. USPGPub No. 20170120376 A1 discloses an additive manufacturing systems including imaging devices for imaging melted particulate.
Reese, et al. USPub No. 20160236414 A1 discloses a method of additive manufacturing process for real time monitoring, detecting and correcting defects during the additive manufacturing process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Md Azad whose telephone @(571)272-0553 or email: md.azad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Md Azad/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights