DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 07/14/2025, claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 16-18 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended. Claims 4-5 are canceled. Claims 16-18 are newly added. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 16-18 are considered in the current Office 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 Previous Objections/Rejections
The interpretation to the limitations “a layer application device” and “a radiation supply unit” has been adjusted as they are term of the art.
35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 1, line 9, the limitation “a laser power modification device” has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus a functional limitation because the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder “laser power modification device” and a functional limitation “to effect an increase of the power per unit area incident on the building material” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure in the specification is an acousto-optic or electro-optic modulator (page 5, lines 33-34).
Claim 4, line 2, the limitation “a deflection unit” has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus a functional limitation because the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder “deflection unit” and a functional limitation “direct laser radiation of the carbon monoxide laser through an aperture” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure in the specification is substantially consists of a galvanometer meter for a deflection into each of the X direction and the Y direction (page 14, lines 25-26).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 6-7, and 16-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a fluent building material” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. At most, the specification discloses “the layer application device needs only to be adapted to apply a shape-less building material, in particular a powder (page 3, lines 30-31)”. Nothing in specification positively recited the limitation of “fluent building material”. Thus, claim 1 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…deflected by a scanner element” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. At most, the specification discloses “when scanning the building material by moving the laser beam along scanlines that are in parallel to each other (hatch lines), the distances that the hatch lines have to each other are made smaller (page 9, lines 12-15)”. Nothing in specification positively recited the limitation of “a scanner element” and “deflected by a scanner element”. Turning to Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application, none of the figure shows and support the presence of a scanner element. Thus, claim 1 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a laser beam switching device” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. The specification fails to disclosed and/or mentioned a laser beam switching device. At most, the specification discloses “a laser power modification device”; however, it is unclear if the two devices are the same devices since nothing in the specification positively recited any structural or functional limitations for “a laser beam switching device”. Thus, claim 16 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a beam expander” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. The specification fails to disclosed and/or mentioned a beam expander. Turning to Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application, none of the figure shows and support the presence of a beam expander. Thus, claim 16 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claim 16 recites the limitation …passing to a scanning device” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. At most, the specification discloses “when scanning the building material by moving the laser beam along scanlines that are in parallel to each other (hatch lines), the distances that the hatch lines have to each other are made smaller (page 9, lines 12-15)”. Nothing in specification positively recited the limitation of “a scanning device”. Turning to Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application, none of the figure shows and support the presence of a scanner element. Thus, claim 1 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claims 17-18 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 16.
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 16-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a laser beam switching device through which a zero order….”. The instant specification discloses “a laser beam modulation device” that perform these functions (page 3, lines 5-10). However, the specification does not disclose the two devices are structural or functional equivalent or interchangeable. Thus, it is unclear if the two devices are the same devices since nothing in the specification positively recited any structural or functional limitations for “a laser beam switching device”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the two devices as equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0207722 (“Feldmann et al” hereinafter Feldmann), US2017/0050266 (“Mueller et al” hereinafter Mueller), NPL Acousto-Optic Modulator (AOM): Altering Light with Sound (Altering Light with Sound), copy provided in Office Action dated 09/06/2023, and WO2019/173000 (“Milshtein et al” hereinafter Milshtein).
Regarding Claim 1, Feldmann teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing a three-dimensional object (Figure 1), the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a layer application device for applying a fluent building material layer by layer (Figure 1, the powder layer is formed with a recoater system, including mechanism 8 that spreads powder from a vertically actuated powder cartridge 6 in the working table region [0046]);
an energy input unit (Figure 1 and [0046], the laser source, or other components positioned in the optical path of the laser source, includes means to change position of the laser beam projection relative to the powder bed such as gantry systems and/or mirror-based systems which may include one or more mirror galvanometers, which may be placed within or outside of the chamber as a whole is considered as an energy input unit) comprising:
a carbon monoxide laser (Figure 1, laser source 1 might be a carbon monoxide laser [0060]); and
a radiation supply unit adapted to direct a laser beam onto a layer of the building material for supplying laser radiation of the carbon monoxide laser to positions in each layer that are assigned to a cross-section of the object in the layer in order to sinter or melt the building material at the positions ([0046], other components positioned in the optical path of the laser source, includes means to change position of the laser beam projection relative to the powder bed such as mirror-based systems which may include one or more mirror galvanometers, which may be placed within or outside of the chamber the mirror based system is functionally and structurally equivalent to a radiation supply unit),
the radiation supply unit comprising a deflection unit adapted to direct laser radiation of the carbon monoxide laser ([0046], other components positioned in the optical path of the laser source, includes means to change position of the laser beam projection relative to the powder bed such as mirror-based systems which may include one or more mirror galvanometers that may be placed within or outside of the chamber is equivalent to a deflection unit) passing through an aperture with a size of the aperture being wide enough to accommodate a diameter of the beam and thence deflected by a scanner element ([0060], the average width of a laser line projected onto the build surface can be as wide as 1 micrometer, as wide as 10 micrometers, as wide as 100 micrometers, as wide as 1 mm, as wide as 10 mm or as wide as 100 mm), all yielding a fine definition resolution solidification in layer formation (The apparatus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114).
Feldmann fails to teach a laser power modification device adapted to deflect the laser beam to an on and off condition, the laser power modification device using a zeroth order laser radiation penetrating the laser power modification device for a power rise time within a time period that is smaller than 300 µs and/or larger than 50 ns, and/or to effect a reduction in a power drop time of the laser within a time period that is smaller than 100 µs and/or larger than 100 ns, the radiation supply unit comprising a deflection unit adapted to direct zeroth order laser radiation of the carbon monoxide laser passing through an aperture with a size of the aperture being wide enough to accommodate a diameter of the zeroth order beam and thence deflected by a scanner element; and thence through focusing optic elements to generate a focus diameter equal to or smaller than 500 pm on a surface of a building material layer; and wherein the laser power modification device is an acousto-optic or electro-optic modulator; all yielding a fine definition resolution solidification in layer formation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mueller also discloses using a carbon monoxide laser followed by a laser power modification device (Figure 1, CO laser delivers a beam of radiation into an acousto-optic modular [0014]), wherein the laser power modification device (Figure 1, acousto-optic modular) adapted to deflect the laser beam to an on and off condition ([0018]-[0019], when AOM 18 is not activated (RFPS 20 is switched off), beam 16 is transmitted directly through the AOM along a zero diffraction-order of the AOM. When AOM 16 is activated (RFPS 20 is switched on), beam 16 is diffracted by the AOM, typically in a first diffraction-order, at an angle to the zero-diffraction order ([0019] and Figure 1). As evidential reference, Altering Light with Sound discloses acousto-optic modulator has a rise time, which is considered the time it takes for the acoustic wave to traverse the input beam, of 150 nanoseconds to as low as 4 nanoseconds (page 2, Rise Time and Modulation Rate). Thus, the acousto-optic modulator taught by Mueller is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114.
Feldmann and Mueller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of carbon monoxide laser system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Feldmann with the acousto-optic modulator system such that it teaches all of the above limitations as taught by Mueller to selectively prevent radiation in beam from reaching workpiece or to selectively allow radiation in beam to reach workpiece ([0023]).
The modified Feldmann fails to teach the laser radiation thence through focusing optic elements to generate a focus diameter equal to or smaller than 500 µm on a surface of a building material layer.
However, Milshtein teaches the laser radiation thence through focusing optic elements to generate a focus diameter equal to or smaller than 500 µm on a surface of a building material layer ([00260], the optical system may include a variable focusing mechanism to alter a forces of the energy beam at the target surface. The focus of the energy beam footprint on a target surface may be from about 50 μm to about 2 µm [00262]).
Feldmann and Milshtein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing 3D article using laser radiation source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of the modified Feldmann such that it discloses all of above discussed limitations as taught by Milshtein to alter the focus of the energy beam ([0260] in order to control beam intensity and the size of the area it affected.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Feldmann teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the zeroth order laser radiation penetrating the laser power modification device is supplied to the positions in each layer that are assigned to the cross-section of the object in the layer in order to solidify the building material (Mueller, [0019], beam is transmitted directly through the AOM along a zero diffraction-order of the AOM. When AOM is activated, beam is diffracted by the AOM, typically in a
One of ordinary skill in the art to recognized that the AOM taught by Mueller is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Feldmann teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the deflection unit is adapted to move a focus of the laser beam with a speed across the surface of the building material that is equal to or larger than 2 m/s and/or equal to or smaller than 50 m/s (Feldmann, [0060], the scanning speed of such a laser line relative to the build surface can be as much as 1 mm/s, as much as 10 mm/s, as much as 100 mm/s, as much as 1 m/s, as much as 10 m/s, as much as 100 m/s or as much as 1000 m/s).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Feldmann teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, Feldmann teaches a ‘checkerboard’ pattern may be used to form a plurality of individual melt pools when scanning with a line laser ([0051]), as shown in Figure 5A and 5C, or delivering energy in a ‘zebra’ pattern ([0052]), as shown in Figure 5B. Feldmann fails to explicitly teach in which a focus of the laser beam can be moved across the surface of the building materials in hatch lines that are parallel to each other with a distance to one another that is smaller than 0.18 mm.
However, Milshtein teaches in which a focus of the laser beam can be moved across the surface of the building materials in hatch lines that are parallel to each other ([00139]-[00140], the energy beam and/or flux may comprise a hatch line or a tile and Figure 3 shows example of various hatching which includes path 314 where laser beam are moved in hatch lines that are parallel to each other) with a distance to one another that is smaller than 0.18 mm ([00130], the (e.g., tiling) energy flux has a FLS (e.g., cross sectional diameter) may be larger than the (e.g., scanning) energy beam. The FLS of a cross section of the (e.g., tiling) energy flux may be at least about 0.05 millimeters (mm), 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm).
Feldmann and Milshtein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing 3D article using laser radiation source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the line laser scanning pattern taught by the modified Feldmann such that the laser beam focus can be moved across the surface of the building materials in hatch lines that are parallel to each other with a distance to one another that is smaller than 0.18 mm as taught by Milshtein since simply substitute one with another provides a predictable result, namely, another known way of scanning pattern across the build material. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0207722 (“Feldmann et al” hereinafter Feldmann), US2017/0050266 (“Mueller et al” hereinafter Mueller), NPL Acousto-Optic Modulator (AOM): Altering Light with Sound (Altering Light with Sound), copy provided in Office Action dated 09/06/2023, WO2019/173000 (“Milshtein et al” hereinafter Milshtein), and WO2019/133212 (“Saha et al” hereinafter Saha).
Regarding Claim 16, Feldmann teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus for powder bed fusion (Figure 1) where an object is built in layerwise fashion using a laser power system that supplies a laser beam to positions in each layer on a building surface that are assigned to a cross-section of the object in the layer in order to solidify a building material (abstract), comprising:
a carbon monoxide laser (Figure 1, laser source 1 might be a carbon monoxide laser [0060]); and
the beam passing from the laser beam switching device through an aperture to accommodate the beam ([0046], other components positioned in the optical path of the laser source, includes means to change position of the laser beam projection relative to the powder bed such as mirror-based systems which may include one or more mirror galvanometers that may be placed within or outside of the chamber is equivalent to a deflection unit and [0060], the average width of a laser line projected onto the build surface can be as wide as 1 micrometer, as wide as 10 micrometers, as wide as 100 micrometers, as wide as 1 mm, as wide as 10 mm or as wide as 100 mm);
the apparatus thereby producing a fine definition resolution in building layers (The apparatus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114) each having a layer thickness of less than about 80 pm to about 10 pm.
The Claims contain limitations, thickness of the building layer, which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, the liquid additive build material does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Feldmann fails to teach a laser beam switching device through which a zero order beam of the laser selectively passes, the laser beam switching device operating to switch the laser beam from a focal point on the building surface thereby reducing beam incident power to about zero in a power fall off span ranging between about 100 µs to about 100 ns, or increasing beam rise power to a desired maximum in about 300 µs to about 50 ns.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mueller also discloses using a carbon monoxide laser followed by a laser power switching device (Figure 1, CO laser delivers a beam of radiation into an acousto-optic modular [0014]), wherein the laser power switching device (Figure 1, acousto-optic modular) adapted to deflect the laser beam to an on and off condition ([0018]-[0019], when AOM 18 is not activated (RFPS 20 is switched off), beam 16 is transmitted directly through the AOM along a zero diffraction-order of the AOM. When AOM 16 is activated (RFPS 20 is switched on), beam 16 is diffracted by the AOM, typically in a first diffraction-order, at an angle to the zero-diffraction order ([0019] and Figure 1). As evidential reference, Altering Light with Sound discloses acousto-optic modulator has a rise time, which is considered the time it takes for the acoustic wave to traverse the input beam, of 150 nanoseconds to as low as 4 nanoseconds (page 2, Rise Time and Modulation Rate). Thus, the acousto-optic modulator taught by Mueller is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114.
Feldmann and Mueller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of carbon monoxide laser system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Feldmann with the acousto-optic modulator system such that it teaches all of the above limitations as taught by Mueller to selectively prevent radiation in beam from reaching workpiece or to selectively allow radiation in beam to reach workpiece ([0023]).
The modified Feldmann fails to teach the beam passing from the laser beam switching device directing the laser beam through focusing optical elements, to yield a spot area of incidence on the building surface with a beam diameter of about 80 µm to about 300 µm; the laser power system providing a focus of the laser beam that can be moved across the surface of the building material in hatch lines that are parallel to each other with a distance to one another that is smaller than 0.18 mm and/or in which a beam offset can be set that is smaller than 0.18 mm.
However, Milshtein teaches the beam passing from the laser beam switching device directing the laser beam through focusing optical elements ([00260], the optical system may include a variable focusing mechanism to alter a forces of the energy beam at the target surface), to yield a spot area of incidence on the building surface with a beam diameter of about 80 µm to about 300 µm ([00311], the footprint of the energy beam may be between about 50 microns to about 600 microns); the laser power system providing a focus of the laser beam that can be moved across the surface of the building material in hatch lines that are parallel to each other ([00139]-[00140], the energy beam and/or flux may comprise a hatch line or a tile and Figure 3 shows example of various hatching which includes path 314 where laser beam are moved in hatch lines that are parallel to each other) with a distance to one another that is smaller than 0.18 mm and/or in which a beam offset can be set that is smaller than 0.18 mm ([00130], the (e.g., tiling) energy flux has a FLS (e.g., cross sectional diameter) may be larger than the (e.g., scanning) energy beam. The FLS of a cross section of the (e.g., tiling) energy flux may be at least about 0.05 millimeters (mm), 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm).
Feldmann and Milshtein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing 3D article using laser radiation source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of the modified Feldmann such that it discloses all of above discussed limitations as taught by Milshtein to alter the focus of the energy beam ([0260] in order to control beam intensity and the size of the area it affected.
The modified Feldmann fails to teach a beam expander.
Saha teaches a beam expander located between the laser source and the scanning device (Figure 1 beam expander 24 located between the laser source 12 and the electrically tunable lens (ETL) 42. The ETL 42 may be used to optically scanned the beam in the axial z direction) [0040]).
Feldmann and Milshtein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing 3D article using laser radiation source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of the modified Feldmann such that it discloses all of above discussed limitations as taught by Saha to match the size of the beam to apertures of the various components ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Feldmann teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the layer thickness is about 25 nm.
The Claims contain limitations, thickness of the building layer, which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, the liquid additive build material does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Feldmann teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein an aperture size of the aperture is equal to or smaller than 50 mm and/or equal to or larger than 5 mm (Feldmann, [0060], the average width of a laser line projected onto the build surface can be as wide as 1 micrometer, as wide as 10 micrometers, as wide as 100 micrometers, as wide as 1 mm, as wide as 10 mm or as wide as 100 mm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754