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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the request for continued examination including remarks and amendments received by the office on 15 July 2025. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, & 17-25 are pending. Claim 20 remains withdrawn as nonelected. Claim 26 is newly added. No claims are amended. No claims are cancelled.
Response to 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-13, 17-19 & 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0061591 to Scott Stecker (‘591 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0090462 to Dave et al. (‘462 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘591 teaches an apparatus for additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects by successive layerwise selective irradiation and consolidation of layers of a build material with an energy beam, wherein the energy beam propagates along an optical beam path onto a build plane, wherein the energy beam irradiates build material in at least one consolidation zone, wherein the apparatus comprises: a detection device configured to: detect radiation (Fig 1A-2 item 18); receive, from the build plane along a radiation optical beam path that is emitted from the build plane other than in a reverse direction to a direction that the energy beam travels onto the build plane and without traveling through an optical component along the optical beam path that the energy beam travels onto the build plane, the radiation that is emitted from the at least one consolidation zone and/or the at least one adjacent zone (Fig 3C item B); and deflect the radiation that is emitted from the at least one consolidation zone and/or the at least one adjacent zone along the radiation optical beam path to an optical sensor (Fig 3A items 34 and 18); and a protective glass that is transparent in at least one defined wavelength spectrum arranged between the build plane and the detection device such that the radiation emitted from the consolidation zone and the radiation emitted from the adjacent zone passes through the protective glass (Fig 3A item 40 and paragraph 0074). ‘591 does not teach the simultaneous monitoring of an adjacent zone. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘462 teaches the detection device for the apparatus wherein the detection device is configured to detect radiation emitted from at least one adjacent zone adjacent to the consolidation zone or radiation emitted from the consolidation zone and radiation emitted from the adjacent zone (paragraph 0083) for the benefit of monitoring the effect of applying laser power to the build surface. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘591 with those of ‘462 for the benefit of monitoring the effect of application of laser power to a build surface.
Regarding claim 3, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the detection device is configured to detect a temperature of the at least one consolidation zone and/or the at least one adjacent zone and/or to determine a temperature gradient between the at least one consolidation zone and the at least one adjacent zone (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 4, ‘591 teaches the apparatus further comprising an irradiation device configured to generate the energy beam using at least one process parameter dependent on the detected temperature and/or the determined temperature gradient (paragraph 0014 at least).
Regarding claim 5, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the irradiation device is configured to generate the energy beam using the at least one parameter so that the temperature in the at least one consolidation zone and/or the temperature in the at least one adjacent zone is controlled and/or the temperature gradient between the at least one consolidation zone and the at least one adjacent zone is reduced dependent on the detected temperature and/or the determined temperature gradient (paragraph 0014 at least).
Regarding claim 6, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the irradiation device is configured to generate the energy beam using the at least one parameter so that the temperature and/or the temperature gradient is controlled dependent on an ambient parameter and/or a path velocity of the energy beam and/or a condition of the build material (paragraph 0031 at least).
Regarding claim 7, ‘591 teaches the apparatus further comprising a data storage configured to store at least one parameter corresponding to a temperature and/or a temperature gradient (paragraph 0123).
Regarding claim 9, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the detection device is synchronized with a beam source of the energy beam in that the at least one consolidation zone and/or the at least one adjacent zone is imaged onto the optical sensor of the detection device (Figs 1A and 2, items 14 and 18).
Regarding claim 12, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein a transmittance spectrum of the protective glass ranges from 170 nm to 5000 nm (paragraph 0074). Examiner’s note regarding interpretation of the art: although the cited prior art does not discuss ranges for wavelengths which the protective glass may be considered transparent, the protective glass is disclosed as being generally transparent and specific exemplary glasses are recited which are generally known to be clear. Therefore, the examiner has concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the cited prior art is that the prior art protective glass is to be regarded as transparent for all wavelengths.
Regarding claim 17, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the irradiation device is configured to generate the energy beam using the at least one parameter so that the temperature in the at least one consolidation zone is reduced and temperature in the at least one adjacent zone increased so as to reduce the temperature gradient between the at least one consolidation zone and the at least one adjacent zone dependent on the detected temperature and/or the determined temperature gradient (paragraph 0123).
Regarding claim 18, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the irradiation device is configured to generate the energy beam using the at least one parameter so that the temperature gradient between the at least one consolidation zone and the at least one adjacent zone is reduced when the temperature gradient achieves a predefined threshold value (paragraph 0123).
Regarding claim 19, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the detection device is synchronized with at least one beam deflection unit configured to guide the energy beam over the build plane (Figs 1A and 2, items 14 and 18 and 34).
Regarding claim 11, ‘591 does not teach a pyrometer. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘462 teaches the apparatus wherein the optical sensor comprises at least one ratio pyrometer camera (TABLE, pg 9) for the benefit of assaying the thermal situation of an additive manufacturing process. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘591 with those of ‘462 for the benefit of monitoring the thermal state of an additive manufacturing apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, ‘591 does not teach the simultaneous monitoring of an adjacent zone. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘462 teaches the detection device for the apparatus wherein the detection device is configured to detect radiation emitted from at least one adjacent zone adjacent to the consolidation zone or radiation emitted from the consolidation zone and radiation emitted from the adjacent zone (paragraph 0083) for the benefit of monitoring the effect of applying laser power to the build surface. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘591 with those of ‘462 for the benefit of monitoring the effect of application of laser power to a build surface.
Regarding claim 21, ‘591 teaches an apparatus for additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects by successive layerwise selective irradiation and consolidation of layers of a build material, the apparatus comprising: a beam source configured to generate an energy beam directed toward a build plane along an optical beam path, wherein the energy beam irradiates build material in at least one consolidation zone (Fig 1 item 14); and a detection device synchronized to a position of the enemy beam on the build plane (Figs 1A and 2, items 14 and 18 and 34), the detection device configured to: receive, from the build plane along a radiation optical beam path that is emitted from the build plane other than in a reverse direction to a direction that the energy beam travels onto the build plane and without traveling through an optical component along the optical beam path that the energy beam travels onto the build plane, radiation emitted (Fig 3C item 34). ‘591 does not teach the simultaneous monitoring of an adjacent zone. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘462 teaches the detection device for the apparatus wherein the detection device is configured to detect radiation emitted from at least one adjacent zone adjacent to the consolidation zone or radiation emitted from the consolidation zone and radiation emitted from the adjacent zone (paragraph 0083) for the benefit of monitoring the effect of applying laser power to the build surface. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘591 with those of ‘462 for the benefit of monitoring the effect of application of laser power to a build surface.
Regarding claim 22, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the detection device is synchronized with a beam deflection unit guiding the energy beam corresponding to the position of the energy beam on the build plane (Fig 3B items 18 and 34).
Regarding claim 23, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein a transmittance spectrum of the protective glass ranges from 400 nm to 2000 nm (paragraph 0074). Examiner’s note regarding interpretation of the art: although the cited prior art does not discuss ranges for wavelengths which the protective glass may be considered transparent, the protective glass is disclosed as being generally transparent and specific exemplary glasses are recited which are generally known to be clear. Therefore, the examiner has concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the cited prior art is that the prior art protective glass is to be regarded as transparent for all wavelengths.
Regarding claim 24, ‘591 teaches an apparatus for additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects by successive layerwise selective irradiation and consolidation of layers of a build material, the apparatus comprising: an irradiation device configured to generate an energy beam directed toward a build plane along an optical beam path, wherein the energy beam irradiates build material in at least one consolidation zone (Fig 1 item 14); and a detection device comprising: an optical sensor (Fig 3A item 18); and a scanning unit positioned between the build plane and the optical sensor along a radiation optical beam path that is emitted from the build plane other than in a reverse direction to a direction that the energy beam travels onto the build plane and without traveling through an optical component along the optical beam path that the energy beam travels onto the build plane, wherein the radiation is emitted from at least one adjacent zone adjacent to the consolidation zone or radiation emitted from the consolidation zone and radiation emitted from the adjacent zone (Fig 3A item 34). ‘591 does not teach the simultaneous monitoring of an adjacent zone. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘462 teaches the detection device for the apparatus wherein the detection device is configured to detect radiation emitted from at least one adjacent zone adjacent to the consolidation zone or radiation emitted from the consolidation zone and radiation emitted from the adjacent zone (paragraph 0083) for the benefit of monitoring the effect of applying laser power to the build surface. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘591 with those of ‘462 for the benefit of monitoring the effect of application of laser power to a build surface.
Regarding claim 25, ‘591 teaches the apparatus wherein the scanning unit is synchronized with the irradiation device (Fig 2 items 14 and 18).
Claim(s) 10, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘591 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0154443 to Milshtein et al. (‘443 hereafter).
The above cited prior art combination does not teach an apochromat. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘443 teaches the use of an apochromatic lens (paragraph 0013) for the purpose of controlling and reducing image distortion. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘902 in view of ‘462 in further view of ‘242 with those of ‘443 for the benefit of improving the fidelity of the image taken.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, has been considered and found persuasive have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly applied prior art.
Regarding applicant’s arguments for the patentability of claims 21 and 24 (such arguments also being pertinent to the above modified rejection of claim 1), examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
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 John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743