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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/05/20255 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 09/05/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the drawing objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the drawings and specification has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicants have overcome the claim rejection(s). However, Applicant’s amendments introduced new 112(b) rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of amended claim 1, Applicant’s argument that Fockele fails to disclose/suggest the newly added limitation “the electronic control unit controls the grinder to remove a set thickness of the entire printed layer having the flaw” because Fockele only discloses the removal of unevenness based on [0034] of the translation is not found persuasive because Applicant fails to take into consideration the entire disclosure and inferences draw from the entire disclosure of Fockele.
For instance, [0009] of the translation of Fockele filed on 09/05/2025 by Applicant reads:
PNG
media_image1.png
647
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since Fockele teaches to adjust the vertical distance between the last-prepared (i.e., printed) layer and the griding tool and to control on/off mode of the grinding tool during its translational movement over the entire process chamber (P0009), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized/inferred that the disclosure of Fockele is not limited only to the removal of unevenness/bumps from the printed layer as applicant alleges. See MPEP § 2144.01.
In fact, [0035] of the translation of Fockele filed on 09/05/2025 by Applicant reads:
PNG
media_image2.png
643
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Fockele implicitly teaches/suggests removal of at least an entire surface/thickness of the last printed layer of the partial body 21 including the flaw/unevenness 55 in [0035] above. See MPEP § 2144.01.Thus, the 103 rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image3.png
406
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“electronic control unit configured to activate the aforesaid grinder” in claim(s) 1 with corresponding structure in [0056] of Applicant’s published application and Fig. 4 of Applicant’s disclosure as well as its ordinary meaning/scope in the art.
“a powder releasing device to allow the powder to fall from the hopper” in claim(s) 1 with corresponding structure in [0024] of Applicant’s published application and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s disclosure.
“first off-axis sensor configured to detect hot spots, sparks and plumes in the printed layers of the metal part” in claim 1 with corresponding structure in [0062] of Applicant’s published application.
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
Claim 9 is 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(s) 9 is/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.
New claim 9 recites the limitation “the monitoring system is configured to change a process parameter associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source, after detecting the flaw” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant argued that pg. 9-12 of Applicant’s specification has support for the claimed limitation; however, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification mentions change/correction of process parameters in two pages but does not disclose how the change/correction of process parameters is achieved by the claimed device. Pg. 11 of Applicant’s specification reads:
PNG
media_image4.png
184
935
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pg. 12 of Applicant’s specification reads:
PNG
media_image5.png
95
929
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The written description fails to disclose/describe that the “monitoring system is configured to change a process parameter associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source, after detecting the flaw” in the application as filed. Applicant’s specification fails to disclose/describe the configuration/structure of the monitoring system that allows the claimed function. Applicant’s specification discloses/describes the monitoring system as sensors, sensors are incapable of changing process parameters associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source. Applicant’s specification fails to disclose/describe that the monitoring system is connected to and controls/changes the parameters/operations of at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source. Thus, the written description fails to disclose/suggest/imply that the monitoring system changes/corrects the process parameter(s). For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s written description is not sufficient to adequately support the claimed limitation/language. See MPEP §§ 2163.04, 2161.01 I, and 2181 II B.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the monitoring system is configured to change a process parameter associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source, after detecting the flaw” which is indefinite. The language states a function obtained by the monitoring system without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. Applicant’s specification fails to disclose/describe the configuration/structure of the monitoring system that allows the claimed function. It is unclear how the monitoring system is configured to change a process parameter when the monitoring system comprises sensors as set forth in claim 1 and is not connected to the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source. Sensors are incapable of changing process parameters associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source especially when no interconnection/relationship is established. In the art, changes to control parameters associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source based on signal from monitoring systems are performed by a control unit connected to and controlling the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and/or the laser source.
Note(s)
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon (e.g., metal) by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fockele (DE 19905067A1 with English machine translation – of record) in view of Dave (US 20170090462 – of record) and Repossini (Additive Manufacturing, 2017, NPL – of record), alone or further in view of DeFelice (US 20170312821).
Regarding claim 1, Fockele discloses a device for removing flaws during additive printing, in situ, of a metal part having a plurality of printed layers (P0001, 0006-007), said device comprising:
a hopper (64) adapted to contain metal powder (64 is capable of containing metal powder: P0001, 0034, Fig. 2);
a printing platform (19) sliding along an axis (19 is capable of sliding along a vertical axis via vertical drive and vertical guide rails: P0023-0024, Figs. 1-2);
a powder releasing device (output gap 66) to allow the powder to fall from the hopper onto the printing platform (P0034, Fig. 2; the output gap 66 performs the claimed function, and therefore, it reads on the claimed powder releasing device);
a doctor blade (smoothing slide 68) for distributing the powder onto the printing platform forming a bed of powder (P0034, Fig. 2; since smoothing slide 68 has the shape and function of a doctor blade, the smoothing slide 68 reads on the claimed doctor blade);
a laser source (34) for selectively melting the bed of powder to form the printed layers (P0001, 0026, Fig. 1); and
the device further comprises:
a grinder (60) for removing printed layers of the metal part the have flaws (60 is capable of removing portion or entire flawed printed layer: P0034-0035, Figs. 1-2); and
a monitoring system configured to detect possible flaws in the printed layers of the metal part (means for detecting a surface roughness exceeding a predetermined extent such as the bump 55 shown in Fig. 2: P0039), wherein said monitoring system is connected to an electronic control unit configured to activate the grinder so that when the monitoring system detects a flaw in one of the printed layers, the electronic control unit controls the grinder to remove a set thickness of the entire printed layer having the flaw (the detecting means is connected to controller 13, the controller 13 is configured to control the vertical distance between the last printed layer and the griding tool between level E and an entire surface/thickness of the last entire printed layer and to control the activation of the grinding tool during its translational movement over the entire process chamber grinder so that when the means detects a flaw/unevenness 55 in at least the last printed layer L of the printed layers, the controller 13 is capable of controlling the grinder to remove a desired surface/thickness of the last entire printed layer having the flaw/unevenness 55: P0009, 0033-0035, annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the monitoring system comprises an off-axis sensor (camera 48: Fig. 1) configured to acquire a photo of the printed layers of the metal part for detecting surface/geometric unevenness (P0030, 0033-0034, Figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
406
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fockele fails to disclose wherein the monitoring system comprises: a coaxial sensor configured to inspect a melted pool of material in the bed of powder; a first off-axis sensor configured to detect hot spots, sparks and plumes in the printed layers of the metal part; and a second off-axis sensor configured to acquire photo of the printed layers of the metal part and/or the bed of powder, for detecting surface and geometric flaws.
In the same field of endeavor, devices for detecting/monitoring flaws during additive printing of metallic parts, Dave discloses the technique of providing a monitoring system comprising: a coaxial sensor (1st coaxial optical sensor 609) configured to inspect a melted pool of material in the bed of powder (the 1st coaxial optical sensor 609 can be a high speed camera for measuring weld pool size/shape in the bed of powder: P0082-0083, 0116, Table 1, Fig. 6); a first off-axis sensor (1st off-axis sensor 610) configured to detect … sparks and plumes in the printed layers of the metal part (the 1st off-axis sensor 610 can be a spectrometer capable of detecting plumes/plasma and their spectral/light emissions in the printed layers of the metal part: P0082-0083, 0052, 0057, 0116, Table 1, Fig. 6); and a second off-axis sensor (2nd off-axis sensor 610) configured to acquire photo of the printed layers of the metal part and/or the bed of powder for detecting surface and geometric flaws (2nd off-axis sensor 610 can be a camera capable of acquiring photos of the printed layers of the metal part and/or the bed of powder for detecting surface and shape/dimensional irregularities/non-uniformities in the printed layers and/or the powder layers: P0082-0084, 0116, Table 1, Fig. 6) for the benefit(s) of monitoring the process from different angles, measuring different physical behaviors and/or implementing at least three different levels of monitoring by using sensors with different characteristics/functions (P0082-0083, Table 1, Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
633
834
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Fockele in view of Dave by incorporating the sensors in the monitoring system of Dave in the monitoring system of Fockele for the benefit(s) of allowing monitoring of the AM process from different angles, measuring different physical behaviors, and/or implementing at least three different levels of monitoring by using at least three different sensors with different characteristics/functions. See MPEP §§ 2143 IC, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
The combination Fockele/Dave fails to disclose that the first off-axis sensor is also configured to detect hot spots.
In the same field of endeavor, devices for detecting/monitoring flaws during additive printing of metallic parts, Repossini (Additive Manufacturing, 2017, NPL – of record) discloses that multi-sensor data techniques can be combined to yield the predictable result(s) of achieving a more complete process characterization by combining information coming from different sources (pg. 36). Repossini further discloses that off-axial sensing complements coaxial sensing because off-axial sensing can be used to monitor additional quantities that cannot be measured by the coaxial sensing (pg. 36). Repossini further discloses/envisions that his disclosed off-axis sensor (pg. 37, Fig. 2) is configured for detecting hot spots (“hot spots”), spatters (plume is an expected spatter), and light emitted by spatters (sparks are light emitted by spatters: pp. 37-40, Fig. 5) can be combined with other known monitoring techniques such as the co-axial monitoring technique used to monitor melt pool, the off-axial slice monitoring technique used to monitor (surface, geometry, dimensions, or temperature) of the printed layer, and/or or other known monitoring technique in Table 1 (pg. 36, Table 1) for the benefit(s) of enhancing comprehension of the LPBF process and improving detection/monitoring of defects (pg. 36).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Fockele in view of Repossini by using the off-axis sensor of Repossini configured for detecting hot spots, plume, and sparks as the first off-axis sensor for the benefit(s) of enhancing comprehension of the LPBF process and/or improving detection/monitoring of defects by using the first off-axis sensor for monitoring more physical behaviors. The teachings of Repossini of combining co-axial sensing used to monitor melt spool with off-axial sensing and combining his disclosed off-axis sensor with other known monitoring techniques to detect other physical behaviors (melt pool, geometry, surface pattern, and temperature) for benefit(s) of enhancing comprehension of the LPBF process and/or improving detection/monitoring of defects further obviate/motivate the provision of all the claimed sensors as claimed. See MPEP §§ 2143 IC, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Alternatively, if Applicant still believes that Fockele fails to disclose/suggest the limitation “the electronic control unit controls the grinder to remove a set thickness of the entire printed layer having the flaw”, then examiner provides the additional evidence to support obviousness of the argued limitation.
Based on the disclosure of Fockele, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there are finite number of options (i.e., partial removal of the flaw/unevenness from the printed layer by removing only portion of the flaw/unevenness as depicted in Fig. 2 or complete removal of the flaw by removing a set/entire thickness of the entire printed layer having the flaw as disclosed/suggested in P0035) available to correct the flaw/unevenness via the grinding tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remove a set/entire thickness of the entire printed layer having the flaw instead of portion of the flaw for the benefit(s) of yielding the predictable result(s) of ensuring complete removal of the flaw.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, devices for detecting/monitoring flaws during additive printing of metallic parts, DeFelice discloses a device for detecting and removing flaws/defects during metal additive printing (Abstract, P0001) comprising a monitoring system configured to detect defects/flaws in the printed layers (abstract, P0012), wherein said monitoring system is connected to an electronic control unit configured to activate a cutting/milling tool to remove portion/entire printed layer having the flaws/defects for the benefit(s) of ensuring complete removal of flaws/defects (P0016, 0028, 0030-0031, 0043).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Fockele in view of ordinary knowledge and DeFelice by configuring the electronic control unit to control the grinder to remove a set/entire thickness of the entire printed layer having the flaw for the benefit(s) of yielding the predictable result of ensuring complete removal of the flaw.
Regarding claim 2, Fockele further discloses wherein the grinder (60) is mounted onto a grinder cart (32), which allows a longitudinal feeding movement of the grinder (P0034, Fig. 2; 32 clearly functions as grinder cart and is substantially equivalent to the grinder cart shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1; thus, 32 reads on the claimed grinder cart).
Regarding claim 4, Repossini further discloses wherein the first off-axis sensor comprises a high-speed camera operating in the visible range (pg. 37, Fig. 2). Dave further discloses use of thermographic infrared cameras as off-axis sensors (P0082-0083, thermal imaging camera in Table 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fockele in view of Dave, Repossini and DeFelice as applied to claim 1 above, alone or further in view of Kruth (US 20090206065 – of record).
Regarding claim 3, Dave further discloses wherein the coaxial sensor comprises a near-infrared photodiode or a near-infrared camera (609 can comprise a photodiode or a high-speed camera that operate(s) in the infrared frequency spectrum which encompasses/obviates a near-infrared spectrum: P0082-0083, Table 1).
Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, devices for detecting/monitoring flaws during additive printing of metallic parts, Kruth discloses a near-infrared photodiode (10) or a near-infrared high speed camera (8) as suitable coaxial sensors (P0094-0096, 0099, 0134, Fig. 2). Kruth further discloses that near-infrared cameras/detecting and infrared cameras/detecting are obvious variants (P0094, claims 27-28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Fockele in view of Kruth by using a near-infrared photodiode or a near-infrared camera instead of infrared camera/photodiode as the coaxial sensor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fockele in view of Dave, Repossini and DeFelice as applied to claim 1 above, alone or further in view of Philippi (US 20090152771 – of record) and/or Caltanissetta (Additive Manufacturing, 2018, NPL – of record).
Regarding claim 5, Dave further discloses/suggests wherein the second off-axis sensor detects the surface and geometric flaws of the entire printing area (610 can be at least one off-axis camera capable of detecting shape, texture, and other geometric properties of “the entire build area”: P0070, 0082-0083, Fig. 6, Table 1).
Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, devices for detecting/monitoring flaws during additive printing, Philippi discloses the technique of incorporating a camera (15) capable of detecting geometry and surface pattern of an entire build area for the benefit(s) of improving process accuracy (Abstract, P0003, 0019-0018, claim 1, and Figs. 2-4).
Caltanissetta (Additive Manufacturing, 2018, NPL – of record) discloses an off-axis camera configured to detect the geometry and surface pattern of the entire printing area before and after laser scanning for the benefit(s) of detecting surface/in-plane and geometric/out-of-plane defects (pg. 183-186, 196, Fig. 2). Caltanissetta further discloses the technique of providing at least two off-axis sensors/cameras (Fig. 2).
Since Fockele teaches to include a camera 48, Dave teaches to use off-axis sensors for monitoring the entire build area (P0083), Repossini discloses that it is desirable to detect surface pattern and geometry of the slice (Table 1 in pg. 36), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Fockele in view of Philippi and/or Caltanissetta by configuring the second off-axis sensor to detect surface and geometric flaws of the entire printing area for the benefit(s) of improving process accuracy and/or allowing detection of surface/in-plane and geometric/out-of-plane defects/flaws as suggested by Philippi and/or Grasso.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fockele in view of Dave, Repossini and DeFelice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheverton (US 20150177158).
Regarding claim 9, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, fails to disclose wherein the monitoring system is configured to change a process parameter associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source, after detecting the flaw.
In the same field of endeavor, devices for detecting/monitoring flaws during additive printing of metallic parts, Cheverton discloses the technique of providing a coaxial sensor (624: Fig. 6C) in combination with a first off-axis sensor (624; Fig. 6A), and a second off-axis sensor (624: Fig. 6B) as a monitoring system for the benefit(s) of monitoring the AM process from different angles and/or with cameras with different characteristics/capabilities (P0085-0086, Figs. 5-6D). Cheverton further discloses/suggests the technique of modifying process steps/parameters associated with at least one of the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source after and based on detection of a flaw by the monitoring system for the benefit(s) for benefit(s) of maximizing equipment utilization and minimizing equipment downtime (P0073-0086, 0103, 0108, 0114, Fig. 5, Fig. 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Fockele in view of Cheverton by configuring the device/controller to change a process parameter associated with at least one of the hopper, the printing platform, the powder releasing device, the doctor blade, and the laser source after and based on the detection of the flaw by the monitoring system for the benefit(s) of maximizing equipment utilization and minimizing equipment downtime as suggested by Cheverton.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Mizutani (US 20160144429) discloses the technique of controlling a grinder to remove a set thickness/surface of an entire printed layer having a flaw for the benefit(s) of removing the flaw without the need of specifying the position of the flaw, and therefore, simplifying the control/operation of the cutting tool (P0049, 0066). Mizutani also discloses the technique of changing a process parameter associated with the printing platform after detecting the flaw to address the flaw (P0049).
Mathea (US 20220379556), which qualifies as an intervening reference, discloses a relevant device and relevant technique of removing portion/entire printed layer(s) having flaws/defects (all pages, in particular, abstract, Fig. 5).
Sachs (US 20180304302 – of record) discloses a relevant device comprising hopper (1104) adapted to contain powder and a powder releasing device (1125) to allow the powder to fall from the hopper (P0192-0195, Figs. 11A and 11I)
Okazaki (US 20170274590 – of record) discloses a relevant device (Fig. 1) comprising hopper (11a) adapted to contain metal powder (P0033-0034, Fig. 4) and a powder releasing device (11d: P0033, Figs. 4-5) to allow the powder to fall from the hopper onto a printing platform (5: P0035-0036, Fig. 1) as a suitable powder supply mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743