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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 19 December 2025. As directed by applicant, claims 1 and 18 are amended, and no claims are cancelled or added. Thus, claims 2-22 are pending. This is a Final Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to “determining” characteristics, but not doing anything with the determination, and generic elements and measuring do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a conventional laser scanning and measuring data is recognized as routine and conventional functions.
With respect to step 1, claim 2 is directed to a process, claim 10 is directed to an apparatus and claim 18 is directed to a process, all of which are eligible at step 1.
With respect to set 2A, the following elements are considered to be abstract:
In claim 2:
“identifying at least one spectral peak associated with material properties of a powder; identifying at least one spectral peak associated with material properties of a powder; selecting a band of wavelengths offset from the at least one identified spectral peak such that the band of wavelengths does not overlap the at least one identified spectral peak; and calculating a temperature of the at least a portion of the layer of the powder based at least in part on the measured energy."
In claim 10:
[a processor] configured to receive data from the detector and to calculate a temperature of the region of the build plane
And claim 18:
calculating a temperature of the region of the build plane during the scanning based at least in part on the measured energy.
The above limitations appear to be directed to mental processes and/or mathematical operations and/or certain methods of human activity because the limitations concern data collection, data analysis and recording the results of data analysis which could be done mentally or by hand with pen and paper).
The following are additional elements that do not amount to a practical application at step 2A:
In claim 2: “scanning an energy source across at least a portion of a layer of the powder; measuring, at the band of wavelengths, energy radiated from the at least a portion of the layer of the powder; ."
and in claim 10: “an energy source configured to direct a beam of energy at a build plane that includes a layer of powder; a sensor that identifies at least one spectral peak associated with material properties of the powder; a detector that measures an amount of energy radiated from the build plane when the energy source is scanned across a region of the build plane, wherein the detector measures the energy at a band of wavelengths [that is offset from the identified at least one spectral peak]”
and in claim 18, “scanning a laser beam across a region of a build plane, wherein the build plane comprises a layer of powder arranged to be fused by the laser beam and the powder has at least one spectral peak associated with material properties of the powder; measuring, within a band of wavelengths, energy radiated from the region of the build plane during the scanning, wherein the band of wavelengths is offset from the at least one spectral peak of the powder such that the band of wavelength do not overlap the at least one spectral peak”.
This appears to be a field of use limitation limiting the data collection/analysis to controlling a temperature for heating. The additional elements of a controller and the laser and the sensors configured to scan and take measurements are routine and conventional in the art as described Moffatt, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0158674 (¶¶0012, 0013, “conventional” laser processes, ¶0078, “conventional radiation detectors to monitor the energy and/or wavelength”), and therefore appears to be merely a routine elements used to implement the abstract idea.
In re-evaluating the additional elements under step 2B, general purpose computers are not “significantly more” as determined in Alice.
The limitations of claim(s) 2-22 , when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth above. The dependent claims only do further determining and/or further characterizing the data or previously done determinations. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2, 8, 9, 10, and 16- 20 are rejected as obvious over Ashton (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0236279).
Regarding claim 2, Ashton discloses an additive manufacturing method, comprising: identifying one or more spectral peak associated with material properties of a powder (Ashton, ¶¶0022, 0024, 0078, ,0096, “The spectral peaks may correspond to spectral lines of a single material of the powder”, spectral peaks ensure that the required proportions of each material are obtained in the solidified material, ¶0091, “for example, depending on the spectral range of the spectrometer, some peaks may lie within a single pixel of a CCD of the spectrometer” only certain peaks are chosen for analyses, and these chosen bands may exclude certain identified peaks for various reasons); […] ; scanning an energy source across at least a portion of a layer of the powder (¶0018, building layers requires multiple scans); measuring, at the band of wavelength, energy radiated from the at least a portion of the layer of the powder (¶0036, detect wavelength); and calculating a temperature of the at least a portion of the layer of the powder based at least in part on the measured energy (¶0008, ¶¶0022, 0023 “spectroscopic analysis”; it may be possible to determine from the spectrum/spectra information on a temperature).
But Ashton does not actually teach “selecting a band of wavelengths offset from each of the one or more identified spectral peak such that the band of wavelengths does not overlap the at least one identified spectral peak. However, Ashton does teach selecting a band of wavelengths (¶0070, “two or more” areas “around” a spectral peak”). However, because of the scanning, there are many “identified peaks” that the band does not include (¶0091, “for example, depending on the spectral range of the spectrometer, some peaks may lie within a single pixel of a CCD of the spectrometer”) Only certain peaks are chosen for analyses, and these chosen bands may exclude certain identified peaks for various reasons (¶0104, fig. 4. “For example, the spectrometer may be replaced with one or more photodiodes capable of recording the intensity of light over a narrow band of wavelengths that includes characteristic peaks in the spectral emissions from the material used in the build..[T]he analysis may comprise analysing the intensity of light recorded by the one or more photodiodes without having to extract the intensity of the peak from an entire spectrum.”, i.e. there are spectral peaks not used in the analysis.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ashton and select certain wavelengths (which would exclude other wavelengths and peaks) in order to analyze the light and determine the temperature, depending on the material in a conventional way
Regarding claim 8, Ashton teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches a method comprising determining an area of the at least a portion of a layer of the powder by: determining a start point of a first scan of the energy source; determining an end point of the first scan; and determining a length of the first scan by calculating a distance between the start point and the end point (Ashton, ¶¶0023, 0024, 0086, “The point distance, exposure time, scan speed, hatch distance and/or laser power may be altered to alter the energy density”; the starting, moving a distance, and ending the scan would be based on the desired parameters, as disclosed in Ashton).
Regarding claim 9, Ashton teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as above, and further teach a method comprising: mapping a thermal energy density to locations within a part being formed by the additive manufacturing method by: receiving energy source drive signal data indicating a path of the energy source across the at least a portion of a layer of the powder; and determining a location of the scanning using the energy source drive signal data. (Ashton, ¶¶0023, 0026, 0060,0086, 0101, focusing and determining energy density, as well as determining energy density for heating properly,¶¶0023, 0086, and data of drive movement ¶0060, and mapping location ¶0101).
Regarding claim 10, Ashton discloses an additive manufacturing system comprising: an energy source (Abstract, “The apparatus including a build chamber containing a build platform, a device for depositing layers of powder material on to the build platform, an optical unit for directing a laser beam to selectively solidify areas of each powder layer and a spectrometer for detecting characteristic radiation emitted by plasma formed during solidification of the powder by the laser beam”)configured to direct a beam of energy at a build plane that includes a layer of powder (Ashton, abstract, “solidification of powder”); a sensor (¶0003, photodetector) that identifies one or more spectral peak associated with material properties of the powder (¶0036, “the photodetector arranged to detect wavelengths within a wavelength band including a wavelength of a characteristic spectral peak of the characteristic radiation, ¶0022, “peak”¶0077 “characteristic material”); a detector (¶0009, spectrometer) that measures an amount of energy radiated from the build plane when the energy source is scanned across a region of the build plane,[…] ; and a processor (¶0097, computer for analyzing data) configured to receive data from the detector and to calculate a temperature of the region of the build plane (¶¶0090, ¶¶0022,0023 “spectroscopic analysis”, by comparing the relative intensities of selected peaks an estimate of the temperature of the plasma can be made).
However, Ashton does not disclose “wherein the detector measures the energy at a band of wavelength that is offset from each of the identified one or more spectral peak. Ashton does teach does teach selecting a band of wavelengths (¶0070, “two or more” areas “around” a spectral peak”). However, because of the scanning, there are many “identified peaks” that the band does not include (¶0091, “for example, depending on the spectral range of the spectrometer, some peaks may lie within a single pixel of a CCD of the spectrometer”) Only certain peaks are chosen for analyses, and these chosen bands may exclude certain identified peaks for various reasons (¶0104, fig. 4. “For example, the spectrometer may be replaced with one or more photodiodes capable of recording the intensity of light over a narrow band of wavelengths that includes characteristic peaks in the spectral emissions from the material used in the build..[T]he analysis may comprise analysing the intensity of light recorded by the one or more photodiodes without having to extract the intensity of the peak from an entire spectrum.”, i.e. there are spectral peaks not used in the analysis.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ashton and select certain wavelengths (which would exclude other wavelengths and peaks) in order to analyze the light and determine the temperature, depending on the material in a conventional way
Regarding claim 16, Ashton discloses all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and but does not further teach a method comprising determining an area of the region of the build plane by: determining a start point of a first scan of the energy source; determining an end point of the first scan; and determining a length of the first scan by calculating a distance between the start point and the end point (Ashton, ¶¶0023, 0024, 0086, “The point distance, exposure time, scan speed, hatch distance and/or laser power may be altered to alter the energy density”; the starting, moving a distance, and ending the scan would be based on desired parameters, as disclosed in Ashton).
Regarding claim 17, Ashton discloses all the limitations of claim 16, as above, and further discloses a method comprising: mapping a thermal energy density to locations within a part being formed by the additive manufacturing system by: receiving energy source drive signal data indicating a path of the energy source across the region of the build plane; andPage 4 of 6Appl. No. 16/831,232Attorney Docket No.: 098581-1184863 determining a location of the scanning using the energy source drive signal data (Ashton, ¶¶0023, 0026, 0060,0086, 0101, focusing and determining energy densit, as well as determining energy density for heating properly,¶¶0023, 0086, and data of drive movement ¶0060, and mapping location ¶0101).
Regarding claim 18, Ashton discloses a method of operating an additive manufacturing system, the method comprising: scanning a laser beam across a region of a build plane, wherein the build plane comprises a layer of powder arranged to be fused by the laser beam (Ashton, ¶0002, “A powder layer is deposited on a powder bed in a build chamber and a laser beam is scanned across portions of the powder layer that correspond to a cross-section of the object being constructed. The laser beam melts or sinters the powder to form a solidified layer”) and the powder has one or more spectral peak (¶0022, peak) associated with material properties of the powder (¶0041, spectra is “characteristic of the material that is present”); measuring, within a band of wavelength, energy radiated from the region of the build plane during the scanning, s; calculating a temperature of the region of the build plane during the scanning based at least in part on the measured energy (¶0008; ¶¶0022, 0023, spectroscopic analysis; it may be possible to determine from the spectrum/spectra information on a temperature.).
(¶¶0022, 0023, 0069, 0070, “determining an offset of the focus from a plane of the powder layer from a peak intensity of a portion of the spectrum identified as relating to thermal emissions”, and further processing optics “separates the light based on wavelengths”; “two or more” areas “around” a spectral peak. However, because of the scanning, there are many “identified peaks” that the band does not include,)
(¶0091, “for example, depending on the spectral range of the spectrometer, some peaks may lie within a single pixel of a CCD of the spectrometer” only certain peaks are chosen for analyses, and these chosen bands may exclude certain identified peaks for various reasons ; ¶0104, “For example, the spectrometer may be replaced with one or more photodiodes capable of recording the intensity of light over a narrow band of wavelengths that includes characteristic peaks in the spectral emissions from the material used in the build..[T]he analysis may comprise analysing the intensity of light recorded by the one or more photodiodes without having to extract the intensity of the peak from an entire spectrum.”, i.e. there are spectral peaks not used in the analysis.)
But Ashton does not actually teach “wherein the band of wavelengths is offset from each of the one or more spectral peaks of the powder such that the at least the band of wavelengths do not overlap the one or more identified spectral peaks”. However, Ashton does teach (¶0091, “for example, depending on the spectral range of the spectrometer, some peaks may lie within a single pixel of a CCD of the spectrometer”; Only certain peaks are chosen for analyses, and these chosen bands may exclude certain identified peaks for various reasons;¶0104, fig. 4. “For example, the spectrometer may be replaced with one or more photodiodes capable of recording the intensity of light over a narrow band of wavelengths that includes characteristic peaks in the spectral emissions from the material used in the build..[T]he analysis may comprise analysing the intensity of light recorded by the one or more photodiodes without having to extract the intensity of the peak from an entire spectrum.”, i.e. there are spectral peaks not used in the analysis.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ashton and select certain wavelengths (which would exclude other wavelengths and peaks) in order to analyze the light and determine the temperature, depending on the material in a conventional way
Regarding claim 19, Ashton discloses all the limitations of claim 18, as above, and further discloses a method wherein the at least one spectral peak is based on material properties of the powder when the powder is undergoing laser irradiation (Ashton, ¶0041, “collect radiation emitted…that is characteristic of the material that is present”).
Regarding claim 20, Ashton discloses all the limitations of claim 18, as above, and further discloses a method wherein the at least one spectral peak and the band of wavelengths are determined with a spectrometer (Ashton, ¶0042 “a spectrometer for analyzing the radiation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered. Unfortunately, the claims, as written, do not overcome the rejections.
Regarding the §101 rejection, after further consultation, it was determined that, here, substituting “calculating” for “determining” does not take the claim out of being “abstract” as at least a mental process.
Applicant argues that Ashton does not disclose “"identifying one or more spectral peaks associated with material properties of a powder; selecting a band of wavelengths offset from each of the one or more identified spectral peaks such that the band of wavelengths does not overlap the one or more identified spectral peaks" as recited in claim 2 (Remarks, p. 10 of 11).
However, although Ashton uses information around the spectral peaks to correlate to the temperature, he certainly does not use information from all the spectral peaks, and Ashton may use information from a spectral peak, or even two spectral peaks, that is, other than “at least one identified spectral peak”. In other words, many spectral peaks are identified, as in Fig. 4, but the analysis is done with only one or two or three, which may be peaks other than “the one or more identified spectral peak”. Nothing requires that the “designated spectral peaks” in Ashton be the ones that are within the analyzed selected bandwidths. Thus, the “identified” spectral peaks may be ones other than the ones used in the analysis of the temperature via the band of wavelengths, and it is those “identified” spectral peak that are excluded. Thus, it would be obvious to select peaks other than some “identified peaks” in order to perform Ashton’s process. Furthermore, Ashton basically says this in the final paragraph of the specification, that not all the peaks are used for the analysis, where he says, “ In this way, the analysis may comprise analyzing the intensity of light recorded by the one or more photodiodes without having to extract the intensity of the peak from an entire spectrum.” (Ashton ¶104) Ashton also indicates that there is indeed a selection among the peaks (Ashton, ¶91). Thus, the §103 rejections over Ashton, above, are not overcome.
No other independent arguments are made.
Please contact Examiner regarding any questions or concerns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see previously filed forms PTO-892.
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 LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761