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 .
The status of the 01/15/2026 claims, is as follows: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 55-72 have been withdrawn; Claims 4, 6, 10-32, and 41-51 have been canceled; Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 33-40, and 52-72 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 33-40, and 52-54 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1: the phrase “in designated areas” in lines 15-16 should be read “in the designated areas”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 33-40, and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1:
The limitation “a processor configured to execute instructions to: determine a variation from the object model based on the information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder, and generate, from a comparison of the sensed post-fusion incomplete-fusion information to the object model, a variation parameter” in lines 9-13 of claim 1 constitutes new matter because it is not supported in the published specification. According to para. 0049-0050 of published specification, it is stated that a comparison of the object model and shape information of the build piece sensed by sensor 321 is made to determine variations. The variations can include size, shape (e.g., deformation), completeness of fusion, location, etc.
There is nowhere in the specification that states that the comparison is made between the sensed post-fusion incomplete-fusion information and the object model. There is nowhere in the specification that states the processor is configured to determine a variation from the object model based on the information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder.
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 1-3, 5, 7-9, 33-40, and 52-54 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1:
The limitation "a processor configured to execute instructions to: determine a variation from the object model based on the information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder, and generate, from a comparison of the sensed post-fusion incomplete-fusion information to the object model, a variation parameter” in lines 9-13 of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how this is accomplished. According to para. 0049-0050 of the published specification, it is stated that a comparison of the object model and shape information of the build piece is made to determine variations, and the variations can include size, shape, completeness of fusion, location.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the limitation is interpreted to mean that the processor is configured to determine a variation from the object model based on sensed shape of the build piece by comparing the sensed shape information of the build piece to the object model and such comparison is indicative of lack of fusion, and generate the variation parameter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 33-34, and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 20150261196) in view of DehghanNiri (US 20180036964) and Ljungblad (US 20140308153)
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson discloses an apparatus (system for performing a material addition manufacturing technique, para. 0021; fig. 1) comprising:
a depositor (nozzle 14) configured to deposit a powder material (powder) (para. 0024);
an energy applicator (energy delivery device 16) including an energy beam source (laser source) configured to generate an energy beam (para. 0026), wherein the energy applicator applies the energy beam to fuse the powder material to create fused powder in a first layer of a build piece (layer 26 of the component 22) (para. 0038; fig. 1), the build piece being based on an object model (designed thickness) (para. 0039);
a sensor (imaging device 18) configured to sense information (thickness of layer 26) (para. 0039-0040) after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder and prior to deposition of a subsequent layer (fig. 2) (it is noted the imaging device 18 senses the thickness of layer 26 prior to forming the subsequent layers as shown in fig. 2); and
a processor (computing device 12; fig. 1) configured to execute instructions to:
determine a variation (defect) from the object model (designed thickness) based on the information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder, and generate, from a comparison of the sensed post-fusion information to the object model (based on 112b rejection above, a comparison is made between the designed thickness and the sensed thickness and the determination of defect is made based on the comparison that is indicative lack of fusion, para. 0040-0042 and 0019), a variation parameter (modifying one or more process parameters and position with the deviation in thickness) that identifies designated areas (position with the deviation in thickness) and associated quantitative compensation values (modifying one or more process parameters) (para. 0045) (“modifying one or more process parameters based on the determination that the thickness of second layer of material 26 is not in the defined range of thicknesses”, para. 0045; fig. 2);
modify a subsequent layer of powder to increase powder thickness in designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder (“additional powder may be present at this location when forming the subsequent layer”, para. 0042 and also 0019) by commanding the depositor (nozzle 14) to locally increase a powder layer thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer (para. 0042. It is noted the powder for the subsequent layer to layer 26 is deposited by the nozzle 14 that is controlled by computing device 12. The powder for the subsequent layer is thicker at the location of the defect); and
modify the application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation from the object model (defect), based on the variation parameter (modifying one or more process parameters and position with the deviation in thickness) in the designated areas of the first layer of powder (layer 26) (para. 0045).
Wilson does not disclose:
the sensor configured to sense information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder and prior to deposition of the subsequent layer; and
the processor configured to:
modify the subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation from the object model based on the variation parameter in the designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder.
However, DehghanNiri discloses an apparatus (printing apparatus 100; fig. 1) comprising a sensor (scanner 160) configured to sense information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete (lack of fusion) after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder (para. 0054, 0038, and 0050-0052) and prior to deposition of the subsequent layer (“scanner(s) 160 may capture data in real-time during the build process”, para. 0052. The scanner 160 capture data indicating if there is a lack of fusion of the layer being built),
the processor (controller 1110) configured to:
determine the variation from the object model (flaw) based on the information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder (lack of fusion) (para. 0050-0052) (it is noted the sensed data of the layer being built from the scanner 160 is used to determine if a flaw is present i.e. lack of fusion, porosity or crack);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Wilson such that it is used to indicate if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder and configure the processor of Wilson such that it determines the variation from the object model based on the information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete as taught by DehghanNiri. Doing so would allow the controller of Wilson to determine defects based on information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder, such that the preventive measures can be taken to avoid defect from manifesting in the subsequent layers of the component.
The modification does not disclose the processor configured to:
modify the subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation from the object model based on the variation parameter in the designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder.
However, Ljungblad discloses a processor (control unit) configured to execute instructions to (para. 0053):
modify the subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation in powder thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder (“apply a new powder material layer…the energy beam may increase its power at the defect position in order to melt all powder material and/or increase the time said energy beam is present at and around the defect position. This process may be repeated for one or several powder layers in order to repair the defect”, para. 0067-0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the process of Wilson in view of DehghanNiri to modify the subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation from the object model based on the variation parameter in the designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder as taught by Ljungblad, in order to increase the application of energy beam in the subsequent layer of the component to ensure all the powder in the subsequent layer is sufficiently melted such that defect can be mitigated in the subsequent layers of the component (para. 0068 of Ljungblad).
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses the processor (computing device 12 of Wilson) is configured to modify the subsequent application of energy by adjusting a power of the energy beam (“may increase its power at the defect position in order to melt all powder material”, para. 0068 of Ljungblad).
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the processor (computing device 12 of Wilson) is configured to modify the subsequent application of energy (“increase the time said energy beam is present at and around the defect position”, para. 0068 of Ljungblad).
The modification does not disclose the processor is configured to modify the subsequent application of energy by adjusting a scanning speed of the energy beam.
However, DehghanNiri discloses the processor (controller 1110) is configured to modify the subsequent application of energy by adjusting a scanning speed of the energy beam (laser speed) (para. 0051. It is noted the laser speed is modified due to feedback from sensor 160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of Wilson in view of DehghanNiri and Ljungblad to modify the subsequent application of energy by adjusting the scanning speed of the energy beam as further taught by Ljungblad, in order to correct the defect detected by the sensor by modifying the scanning speed of the energy beam to ensure the powder in the subsequent layer is sufficiently melted.
Regarding Claim 7, Ljungblad discloses the information comprises a location of the fused powder in the first layer (defect position) (para. 0067), and the processor (control unit) is configured to modify the subsequent application of energy by increasing the energy applied to the powder material in a second layer over the location (“the energy beam may increase its power at the defect position in order to melt all powder material”, para. 0068).
Regarding Claim 8, Ljungblad discloses the processor (control unit) is configured to modify the subsequent application of energy by applying additional energy to the fused powder (“the energy beam may increase its power at the defect position in order to melt all powder material”, para. 0068).
Regarding Claim 9, Wilson discloses the sensor (imaging device 18) further includes an optical sensor, wherein the information includes optical information obtained from the optical sensor (para. 0039 and 0028).
Regarding Claim 33, Ljungblad discloses the information includes a thickness of the powder material in a second layer (“If applying a powder layer on a non modified defect, the powder may at this defect position have a thickness which is larger than the melting capability of the energy beam.”, para. 0067), the information further including an area of powder material in the second layer that is thicker than a desired thickness (para. 0067-0068).
Regarding Claim 34, Ljungblad discloses the processor (control unit) increases the subsequent application of energy to the area of the second layer that is thicker (para. 0067-0068).
Regarding Claim 52, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the processor (computing device 12 of Wilson) is configured to apply the additional energy to the fused powder (para. 0068 of Ljungblad).
The modification does not disclose the processor is configured to apply the additional energy to the fused powder by re-scanning the fused powder with the energy beam.
However, Ljungblad further discloses the processor (control unit) is configured to apply the additional energy to the fused powder by re-scanning the fused powder with the energy beam (“The repair process may for instance comprise a method of remelting the detected defect area”, para. 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of Wilson in view of DehghanNiri and Ljungblad to apply the additional energy to the fused powder by re-scanning the fused powder with the energy beam as further taught by Ljungblad, in order to ensure the powder is sufficiently melted so that the defect is corrected.
Regarding Claim 53, DehghanNiri discloses the processor (controller 1110) is configured to determine whether a portion of the build piece is missing (depth of metal loss) based on the information (lack of fusion), such that the information indicates fusion of the fused powder is incomplete if the processor determines the portion of the build piece is missing (para. 0044 and 0042).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wilson (US 20150261196) in view of DehghanNiri (US 20180036964) and Ljungblad (US 20140308153) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kottilingam (US 20180104742)
Regarding Claim 5, the modification substantially disclose all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the sensor includes a thermal sensor that senses thermal information, wherein the information includes the thermal information.
However, Kottilingam discloses an apparatus (printing apparatus 100; fig. 1) comprises a thermal sensor (thermal camera) that senses thermal information (thermography), wherein the information includes the thermal information (para. 0020-0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Wilson, DehghanNiri, and Ljungblad to include the thermal sensor as taught by Kottilingam, in order to capture the thermal information of the part being built and to be utilized in a feed-back control to ensure that 3D object is free of defect (para. 0020 of Kottilingam).
Claims 35-40, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wilson (US 20150261196) in view of DehghanNiri (US 20180036964) and Ljungblad (US 20140308153) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Craeghs (US 20180322621)
Regarding Claim 35, the modification substantially disclose all of the claimed features as set forth above. Ljungblad discloses powder above the defect is expected to have a thickness more than desired (para. 0067-0068). The modification does not disclose the area of the second layer that is thicker includes an area above a sagging portion of the fused powder.
However, Craeghs discloses the area of the second layer that is thicker includes an area above a sagging portion of the fused powder (downfacing surfaces of parts) (para. 0042 and 0075 and abstract. It is noted above the downfacing surface of the part, more powder is deposited than desired. To remedy the overhang, the spot diameter, laser power and scanning speed are changed. The error i.e. overhang is detected by taking optical image of one or more layers of the build material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase energy of the laser beam in the area above the sagging portion of the fused powder of Wilson, DehghanNiri, and Ljungblad, in order to sufficiently melt all the powder because it is taught in Craeghs that more powder is deposited above the sagging portion than desired.
Regarding Claim 36, the modification substantially disclose all of the claimed features as set forth above. Ljungblad discloses the information includes a thickness of the powder material in a second layer (para. 0068-0069) (it is noted because defect is detected in the lower layer, the system of Ljungblad determines powder thickness of the second layer above the defect is different from the rest of the second layer).
The modification does not disclose the information further including an area of powder material in the second layer that is thinner than a desired thickness.
However, Craeghs discloses a sensor (optical camera) that senses information, wherein the information further including an area of powder material in the second layer that is thinner than a desired thickness (para. 0037, 0041 and 0048-0049) (it is noted the optical camera captures the image of warpage that results in not enough powder deposited on the top layer because the warpage projects above its intended plane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Wilson, DehghanNiri, and Ljungblad, to capture the information that further includes the area of powder material in the second layer that is thinner than the desired thickness (i.e. the area of powder above the warpage) as taught by Craeghs, in order to utilize the information such that feedback control mechanisms may be used to correct the error i.e. warpage (para. 0072 and 0075 of Craeghs).
Regarding Claim 37, Craeghs discloses the processor (processor 1210; fig. 12) decreases the subsequent application of energy to the area of the second layer that is thinner (para. 0072, 0075, and 0048) (it is noted upon detection of warpage, the processor 1210 determines that in the next layer the powder is not evenly provided the application of energy is adjusted as part of feedback control mechanism).
Regarding Claim 38, Craeghs discloses the area of the second layer that is thinner includes an area above a portion of the first layer that bulges upward into a space that is not meant to include the fused powder (para. 0037).
Regarding Claim 39, the modification substantially disclose all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the information includes information of a shape of the fused powder.
However, Craeghs discloses a sensor (optical camera) that senses information, wherein the information includes information of a shape of the fused powder (0048-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Wilson, DehghanNiri, and Ljungblad, to capture the information that includes the shape of the fused powder (i.e. warpage, dross such as overhang surface) as taught by Craeghs, in order to utilize the information such that feedback control mechanisms may be used to correct the error i.e. warpage (para. 0072 and 0075 of Craeghs).
Regarding Claim 40, Craeghs discloses the processor (processor 1210; fig. 12) determines a variation of a thickness of the powder material in a second layer based on the shape of the fused powder of the first layer (para. 0037, 0041, 0049, and 0072) (it is noted when the warpage is detected the processor 1210 determines that powder thickness in the next layer is uneven, therefore some feedback control mechanism may be used to correct the warpage).
Regarding Claim 54, the modification substantially disclose all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the information includes information of a shape of the build piece, and the processor compares the information of the shape with an object model of the build piece to determine whether the portion of the build piece is missing.
However, Craeghs discloses a sensor (optical camera) that senses information, wherein the information includes information of a shape of the build piece (overhang), and the processor compares the information of the shape with an object model of the build piece (reference image of build material) to determine whether the portion of the build piece is missing (overhang) (para. 0009, 0048, and 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Wilson, DehghanNiri, and Ljungblad, to capture the shape of the build material and compare it to the reference shape of the build material to determine whether the portion of the build material is missing as taught by Craeghs, in order to detect common errors such as warpage and overhang during the printing process such that corrective actions can be taken during the build. Thus, time and materials are not lost producing a part that will not reach the quality requirements (para. 0027 of Craeghs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 8-9 of the Remarks “Amended claim 1 requires a coordinated, model-based control loop that (i) detects
"incomplete fusion" after energy application, (ii) computes a model-referenced "variation
parameter," and (iii) uses that single parameter to drive both targeted powder-layer thickening and targeted energy modulation in registration. The cited combination of Wilson, DehghanNiri, Ljungblad (and further Craeghs/Kottilingam for dependents) does not disclose or suggest this architecture. First, currently amended Claim l expressly limits the sensing in time and type: the sensor "is configured to sense information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder and prior to deposition of a subsequent layer." Wilson' s laser imaging evaluates layer geometry and powder defects, but it does not sense "incomplete fusion" as such "after the energy beam is applied," and certainly not in the expressly claimed window "prior to deposition of a subsequent layer." DehghanNiri detects flaws including "lack of fusion," but via a dedicated electromagnetic scanner integrated into the recoater assembly and geared to metallic/ferromagnetic builds; grafting that modality into Wilson's optical, thickness-centric framework is not a straightforward substitution, and the Office Action does not identify how the combined system would perform the specifically claimed post-fusion, pre-deposition detection of incomplete fusion.
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because the sensor of Wilson is configured to sense the thickness of the layer 26 after the energy beam is applied to form the layer 26 and prior to deposition of the subsequent layer (fig. 2 indicates in step 34 that once the thickness is within range, next step is to form the subsequent layer by depositing the powder for the subsequent layer.
DehghanNiri discloses the sensor (scanner 160) is configured to sense information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder (“three dimensional image is analyzed to determine if a flaw, such as a lack of fusion,” and “The scanner(s) 160 may capture data in real-time during the build process”, para. 0050-0052).
The modification would result in the sensor (scanner 160 of DehghanNiri) is configured to sense information indicating if fusion of the fused powder is incomplete (lack of fusion) after the energy beam is applied to fuse the powder and prior to deposition of a subsequent layer (in both Wilson and DehghanNiri, the sensing is performed prior to forming the subsequent layer).
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 9 of the Remarks
“Second, currently amended Claim 1 requires that the processor "generate, from a
comparison of the sensed post-fusion incomplete-fusion information to the object model, a
variation parameter that identifies designated areas and associated quantitative compensation
values." Wilson compares image-derived thickness to a tolerance and may alter a tool path, but it does not disclose generating a single "variation parameter" derived from "incomplete-fusion" information as compared to the object model. DehghanNiri' s processing fuses multiple EM scans to locate flaws and may support process correction, but it does not disclose generating the recited model-based "variation parameter" that then drives two distinct actuators in a coordinated way.”
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because the limitation “generate, from a comparison of the sensed post-fusion incomplete-fusion information to the object model, a variation parameter that identifies designated areas and associated quantitative compensation values." constitutes new matter. As rejected by 112b above, the limitation is interpreted to mean the processor is configured to determine a variation from the object model based on sensed shape of the build piece by comparing the sensed shape information of the build piece to the object model and such comparison is indicative of lack of fusion, and generate the variation parameter that identifies designated areas and associated quantitative compensation values.
In this case, Wilson discloses the processor 12 configured to determine a variation (defect) from the object model (designed thickness) based on sensed shape of the build piece (thickness of layer 26) by comparing the sensed shape information of the build piece to the object model and such comparison is indicative of lack of fusion (para. 0040-0042 and 0019; fig. 2), and generate the variation parameter (modifying one or more process parameters and position with the deviation in thickness) that identifies designated areas (position with the deviation in thickness) and associated quantitative compensation values (modifying one or more process parameters).
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 9-10 of the Remarks
Third, currently amended Claim 1 positively recites active, controller-directed
powder-mass manipulation in the next layer: the processor "modify[ies] a subsequent layer of
powder to increase powder thickness in designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder, by
commanding the depositor to locally increase a powder layer thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer." The cited references address defects by energy changes ( e.g., increased power, rescans, altered speed). Wilson's discussion that "additional powder may be present" above a thin prior layer is an incidental consequence of geometry, not a teaching to "command the depositor to locally increase" powder thickness at "designated areas" in the subsequent layer. Neither DehghanNiri nor Ljungblad discloses controller-driven local powder-thickness increase; Ljungblad's remedies are energy-only (remelt, power/time increases) rather than powder dosing in the next layer. Thus, the limitation "by commanding the depositor to locally increase a powder layer thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer" is missing from the combination and is not suggested by the energy-only corrective strategies on which the Office Action relies.
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because Wilson discloses the powder delivery device 14 is controlled by the computing device 12 (fig. 1). In the subsequent layer above the defect area above the layer 26 (i.e. if the thickness of layer 26 is less than desired thickness, more powder is expected to be deposited in the subsequent layer above the defect), the computing device 12 is configured to control the powder delivery device 14 to deposit more powder above the defect (para. 0019).
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 10 of the Remarks
“currently amended Claim 1 requires coordinated dual actuation driven by a single
parameter: the processor must "modify a subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation from the object model, using the same variation parameter to control the energy applicator to apply compensatory energy in the designated areas." The cited art discloses adjusting energy in response to detected issues (e.g., Ljungblad's increased power/remelting), but does not disclose or suggest using "the same variation parameter" that was computed from "post-fusion incomplete-fusion information" versus the "object model" to simultaneously (i) "command the depositor to locally increase" pmvder thickness in designated areas and (ii) "apply compensatory energy in the designated areas." This explicit coupling-same parameter, same designated areas, two different actuators ( depositor and energy applicator)is absent from ·wilson, DehghanNiri, and Ljungblad individually and in combination.”
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because “the processor must "modify a subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation from the object model, using the same variation parameter to control the energy applicator to apply compensatory energy in the designated areas” (emphasis added) is not required by the claim. It is noted that the limitation in line 19-20 of claim 1 uses “or”. It is interpreted to read “modify a subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation from the object model, based on the variation in powder thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder.”
The claim merely requires the processor to increase the powder thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder and modify the subsequent application of energy to compensate for the variation from the object model based on the variation in powder thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer.
Wilson discloses the computing device 12 is configured to apply additional powder in the subsequent layer above the defect area in the layer 26 (para. 0042 and 0019). The computing device 12 of Wilson controls the nozzle 14 to deposit the powder in the subsequent layer to layer 26, which results in the more powder deposited in the subsequent layer above the defect area in the layer 26.
Ljungblad discloses once defect is detected, the processor is configured to modify the subsequent application of energy by the energy applicator to compensate for the variation in powder thickness in the designated areas of the subsequent layer of powder (para. 0067-0068).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761