DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-16 are pending and presented for examination on the merits. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-16 are currently amended.
Status of Previous Objection to the Drawings
The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn except for the following objections that are maintained:
The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference characters 28a and 28b are included in Fig. 1 but are not mentioned in the description.
The drawings also fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference sign 28 (beam splitter) is mentioned in the description (para. [0043]), but is not included in any of the figures.
Status of Previous Claims Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is moot in view of the canceled status of the claim.
The previous rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
The previous rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained. The limitation directed to the detection by the first sensor being “at least temporarily identical” is indefinite for lack of clarity. The meaning of “identical” as it applies to detection is unclear because the claim does not state what or how the detection is identical. Identical detection could refer to the manner of carrying out the detection (e.g., parameters measured, movement, etc.), the results collected by the detection step, or some other aspect of a detection process.
Furthermore, the meaning of the phrase “at least temporarily,” as applied to the term “identical” and the detection step, lacks clarity. What is unclear is whether the detection step in each case eventually becomes permanently different (i.e., detection eventually becomes non-identical); whether “at least” means the detection is temporarily identical at its baseline; or whether some other meaning applies based on an aspect of detection, as noted in the preceding paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, 3-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a method of operating a manufacturing device for the additive manufacture of a three-dimensional object. The claims recite steps of evaluating measurement signals to determine values of characteristics of a test body and a component and a step of comparing the values of the test body with the values of the component.
Steps of evaluating and comparing are abstract ideas because they are mental processes in which determinations are made in the human mind. Comparing values and implementing that comparison to influence (or not influence) a future action requires a person to make decisions regarding the comparison and implementation. This is supported by MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in which examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After the evaluating and comparing steps, the claims recite a step of irradiating the component region with a second beam to build an additional part of the component. The irradiation is carried out by controlling one or more parameters of the second beam based on any deviation between values of the test body and values of the component. Although this irradiation step implicitly incorporates the comparing step (note that the irradiation step does not expressly refer to the comparing step), it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It should be noted that there is no specificity regarding which parameter(s) of the second beam are involved or how those parameter(s) are controlled. Without specifics, there are no meaningful limits imposed on the irradiation step and no practical application integrating the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claims recite that parameter control is “based on” deviations between values of the test body and the component. However, “based on” does not provide any further specificity because basing control on a deviation, without elaboration, does not give instructions how to proceed if/when there is a deviation. A deviation may exist, but the claim does not require any particular action to be taken. For instance, the existence of a deviation could mean that corrective action is taken during the build to ensure that the component is identical to the test body; it could mean that corrective action takes place but produces a component that is close to the test body but less than identical; or it could even mean that no action is taken. Claims 3-12 and 14-16 also do not supply a practical application, as they elaborate on the device components and/or directing and moving steps, and the claims do not provide specifics on the controlling and parameters of the irradiation step.
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea. The remaining method steps are directed to directing steps and irradiating steps. In the directing steps, the device components are arranged and positioned in a particular manner. In the irradiating steps, a beam is shown onto regions of the building area. These steps are merely gathering steps for supplying data to be used in the evaluating steps.
The claims further do not identify any improvements to the functioning of the device or any other technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). In addition, a device comprising two scanning units, two beams, and two sensors are well known (e.g., note the prior art rejections below) and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional devices previously known to industry. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 102018127986 (A1) to Wagner et al. (“DE ‘986”) (computer-generated translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, DE ‘986 discloses a method for operating a device for the additive production of a three-dimensional object by layer-by-layer application and selective solidification of a building material (method for operating a manufacturing device for the additive manufacture of a three-dimensional object by layered application and selective solidification of a building material). Para. [0001]. The additive manufacturing occurs within a building field located in a work surface (selective solidification of building material in a building area lying in a working surface). Abstract.
The device comprises two or more scanning units (first scanning unit and second scanning unit), each comprising a primary beam source and a secondary beam source (respective first beam source and second beam source controlled by the respective first scanning unit and second scanning unit). Para. [0003]. The scanning units are designed and arranged to direct a beam of the respective source onto different target points on the construction site (first scanning unit and second scanning unit are configured to direct respective beams onto respective target points on the building area). Para. [0003].
The device comprises sensor units that are associated with their respective scanning units (manufacturing device further comprises a first sensor unit and a second sensor unit). Para. [0028]. The sensor units are guided to monitoring areas (first scanning unit and second scanning unit configured to direct a first detection region and a second detection region to respective target points). Para. [0028], [0031], [0040]; Figs. 1-3.
In Fig. 1, components 22b, 26b, and 24b correspond with the claimed first scanning unit, first sensor unit, and first beam source, respectively, and components 22a, 26a, and 24a correspond with the claimed second scanning unit second sensor unit, and second beam source, respectively, with 32a corresponding with the claimed second beam.
The method comprises a step of irradiating a primary beam (corresponds to claimed second beam) onto building material so that a partial area of the three-dimensional object is formed (irradiating a test body region in the building area with the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit to build at least a part of the test body). Para. [0038]; Fig. 1. A secondary scanning unit (corresponds to claimed first scanning unit) comprising a secondary sensor unit is directed to the test body area, the secondary scanning unit monitoring the area on which construction takes place (directing by the first scanning unit the first detection region of the first sensor unit onto which at least one first partial region of the test body region). Para. [0030], [0033]. The secondary beam source (corresponds to the claimed first beam) can be in a deactivated state so that no beam emanates from it (directing … the first detection region … without the first scanning unit directing the first beam onto the test body region). Para. [0020], [0029]; Fig. 1.
Signals are detected by the second scanning unit comprising the second sensor unit can be used to regulate and/or control the irradiation process by drawing conclusions about the irradiated area (evaluating first measurement signals detected by the first sensor unit to determine one or more first values of a characteristic part of the test body). Para. [0018], [0034], [0039].
DE ‘986 teaches collecting reference data from previously built layers or from the build process of a parallel or previously built component. Para. [0015]. The build process enables the building of parts (includes both test body and component) in parallel using the same procedure and recorded values that are compared with each another in the individual assembly processes of parts assembled in parallel, with adjustments made if deviation is detected (controlling one or more parameters of the second beam based on any deviation between the one or more second values with the one or more first values). Para. [0015]. The build process is monitored so that adjustments can be made to promote quality control. Para. [0011]-[0015]. This meets the claimed steps of irradiating, directing, evaluating, comparing, and irradiating to build an additional part of the component, as they pertain to building the component part.
Regarding claim 3, DE ‘986 teaches that the monitoring area 30a includes the target point 36a (directing, by the second scanning unit, the second detection region of the second sensor unit to a respective target point of the second scanning unit during irradiation of the part of the test body region with the second beam directed onto the test body by the second scanning unit). Para. [0036]; Fig. 1. Radiation emitted from the construction field is collected by the monitoring area 30a (detecting, by the second sensor unit, the second target point of the second scanning unit). Para. [0036]; Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, DE ‘986 teaches monitoring during movement of the target point 36a or beam 32a while the position is irradiated (the detecting, by the second sensor unit, the second target point of the second scanning unit is performed while the second scanning unit moves the second target point of the second scanning unit over the test body region). Para. [0036]; Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, DE ‘986 teaches that monitoring area 30b-I can be held in fixed position independent of movement of the beam 32a (holding the first detection region of the first sensor unit stationary during the irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit). Claim 2; para. [0017], [0033]; Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, DE ‘986 teaches that the beam 32a is moved during irradiation onto target point 36a (moving, by the second scanning unit, the second target point of the second scanning unit over the test body region during the irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit). Claim 9; para. [0030], [0033], [0038].
Regarding claim 7, DE ‘986 teaches that the monitoring area can extend over the entire construction site, and the irradiation target can move therethrough (moving the second target point of the second scanning unit through the first detection region of the first sensor unit). Para. [0009]. Additionally, target points are illustrated as moving through monitoring areas. Para. [0042]; Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 8, DE ‘986 teaches that the manufacturing device can have at least two or more beam sources and two or more scanning units. Para. [0003]. Because the number can exceed two, this means that there may be a third beam source and third scanning unit. The scanning unit is designed and arranged to direct a beam of the respective beam source to different target points on the construction site (third scanning unit is designed and arranged to direct a third beam of a third beam source onto different target points on the build area). Para. [0003]. The manufacturing device comprises additional sensor unit that can be used to monitor like the first sensor unit (directing, by a third scanning unit, a third detection region of the third sensor unit onto at least one second partial region of the test body region during irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit). Para. [0020].
Regarding claim 10, DE ‘986 teaches that irradiation causes the build-up material, which is in powdered form, to become solidified (irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit is carried out in such a way that initially powdery building material solidifies). Para. [0007], [0013], [0015], [0026], [0038].
Regarding claim 15, DE ‘986 teaches that the assembly process can be run in parallel using the same procedure using the same type of procedure for both irradiated points (building two test bodies wherein the irradiation by the second beam of the second scanning unit is identical in each case when building the two test bodies). Para. [0015], [0022]. Recorded values are compared with each other and the assembly processes of parts assembled in parallel are adjusted accordingly (detection by the first sensor unit in each case is at least temporarily identical). Para. [0015].
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0093416 (A1) to Prexler et al. (“Prexler”).
Regarding claim 1, Prexler teaches a method for calibrating a manufacturing device for additively producing a three-dimensional object by applying layer by layer and selectively solidifying a building material that is preferably powder (method for operating a manufacturing device for additive manufacture of a three-dimensional object by layered application and selective solidification of a building material). Para. [0001], [0006]. The object (2) to be formed is positioned on a building platform (12) and is solidified on the working plane (7) (building material in a building area lying in a working surface). Para. [0037]; FIG. 1.
The manufacturing device comprises at least two scanning units (first scanning unit and second scanning unit), each of which is capable of directing a beam to different target points in the working plane, preferably in the build area (first scanning unit and second scanning unit are designed and arranged to direct respective first beam and second beam onto different target points in the building area), which are located within a scanning region assigned to the respective scanning unit, wherein the scanning regions of the at least two scanning units overlap in an overlap area. Para. [0006]; FIG. 2.
Sensors (30a, 30b) (manufacturing device comprises first sensor unit and second sensor unit) detect radiation, and the scanners (23a, 23b) (first scanning unit and second scanning unit) deflect laser beams (21a, 21b) (first beam source and second beam source). Para. [0039]-[0041]; FIG. 2. At least a first of the at least two scanning units is assigned a first monitoring unit whose monitoring region extends to a target point of the first scanning unit and its proximity (first scanning unit and second scanning unit are configured to direct first detection region and second detection region of the first sensor unit and second sensor unit, respectively, to a first target point of the first scanning unit and to a second target point of the second scanning unit, respectively). Para. [0006].
The method includes the following steps:
(a) selectively solidifying building material by a first laser beam or a second laser beam (irradiating a test body region in the building area with a second beam directed onto the test body region by a second scanning unit to build at least a part of a test body) (para. [0043]);
(b) directing a monitoring region of a first monitoring unit to a region in the overlap area without a beam emanating from the first scanning unit (directing, by a first scanning unit of the manufacturing device, a first detection region of a first sensor unit onto at least one first partial region of a test body region without the first scanning unit directing the first beam onto the test body region) (para. [0006], [0049]);
(c) irradiating at least a portion of the monitoring region of the first monitoring unit with a beam via a second of the at least two scanning units (para. [0006]), and
(d) evaluating an output signal of the first monitoring unit (evaluating first measurement signals detected by the first sensor unit to determine one or more first values of a characteristics part of the test body) (para. [0006]). Para. [0012]-[0016]; claims 1-11.
Prexler teaches that calibration can be carried out once before and/or during the building process. Para. [0058]. Calibration can take place during building of an object at positions of the powder bed located within a cross-section of the object to be produced and solidified by the laser beam (corresponds to the claimed component). Para. [0059]. One or more calibration object(s) built only for the purpose of calibration (corresponds to claimed test body) can be additionally built in the overlap area. Para. [0059]. The manufacturing device is configured and/or controlled such that it repeats the steps of applying and selectively solidifying until the object is completed and that it carries out a calibration method described above at least once before and/or during building of the object (irradiating the component region with the second beam to build an additional part of the component). Para. [0023]. Calibration can be dynamic and continuous and is necessary for obtaining dimensional accuracy and precision. Para. [0010], [0064].
Correction data for the production of the object can be obtained from the detection of said deviation in at least one locations of the working plane (implicit to compare values of the test body and the component body). Para. [0047]. During production, control of the scanner can then be corrected using the correction data in such a way that the actual positions of incidence regions of the laser beam coincide as exactly as possible with the desired positions (controlling one or more parameters of the second beam based on deviation between values of the test body and component body). Para. [0047]. Thus, building an object in accordance with data obtained from building the calibration object(s) fulfills the claimed steps of irradiating, directing, and evaluating steps as they pertain to building the component because these steps are required to ensure that the evaluation and comparison are available to instruct the device to build the object precisely and accurately.
Regarding claim 3, Prexler teaches a second sensor detecting a second monitoring region in the working plane that extends to the incidence region of the second laser beam and its proximity (directing, by the second scanning unit, the second detection region of the second sensor unit to the respective second target point of the second scanning unit during irradiation of the part of the test body region with the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit and detecting, by the second sensor unit, the target point of the second scanning unit). Para. [0046].
Regarding claim 4, Prexler teaches that the second scanning unit is assigned a second monitoring unit whose monitoring region extends to a target point of the second scanning unit and its proximity and where a change of a position of the monitoring region of the second monitoring unit is carried out as a function of a change of a position of the target point of the second scanning unit (the detecting, by the second sensor unit, the second target point of the second scanning unit is performed while the second scanning unit moves the second target point of the second scanning unit over the test body region). Para. [0011], [0018], [0024].
Regarding claim 5, Prexler teaches that the monitoring region can be fixed (holding the first detection region of the first sensor unit stationary during the irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit). Para. [0063]; FIG. 3a.
Regarding claim 6, Prexler teaches that the second scanning unit is assigned a second monitoring unit whose monitoring region extends to a target point of the second scanning unit and its proximity and where a change of a position of the monitoring region of the second monitoring unit is carried out as a function of a change of a position of the target point of the second scanning unit (moving, by the second scanning unit, the second target point of the second scanning unit over the test body region during the irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit). Para. [0007], [0011], [0018].
Regarding claim 7, Prexler teaches the monitoring region of the first monitoring unit is limited to the target point of the first scanning unit and/or the second scanning unit and its proximity in the build area (moving the second target point of the second scanning unit through the first detection region of the first sensor unit). Para. [0013], [0054], [0064]; FIGS. 6a and 6b.
Regarding claim 8, Prexler teaches that the device can also contain more than two exposure units and/or scanners (third scanning unit). Para. [0076]. A scanning region can be assigned to each scanner, wherein the scanning regions can overlap in one or several overlap areas. Para. [0076]. Each overlap area can thus be irradiated by at least two, but possibly also by three or more lasers (third beam source). Para. [0076]. A sensor is associated with at least one (third sensor unit), preferably each exposure unit or at least one, preferably each scanner. Para. [0076].
The at least two scanning units is/are each capable of directing a beam to different target points in the working plane (third scanning unit is designed and arranged to direct a beam of a third source onto different target points on the building area). Abstract; para. [0006], [0022].
At least a first of the at least two scanning units is assigned at least one monitoring unit whose monitoring region extends to a target point of the first scanning unit and its proximity. Para. [0022], [0023]; claims 13 and 14. Since there can be a plurality of scanning units, monitoring units, and monitoring regions, this plurality encompasses a third scanning unit, third sensor, and associated detection region during the build process (directing, by the third scanning unit, a third detection region of the third sensor unit onto at least one second partial region of the test body during the irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit).
Regarding claim 10, Prexler teaches that the beam of radiation (beam via the second of the at least two scanning units) is suited for solidifying the building material (irradiation of the part of the test body by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit is carried out in such a way that initially powdery building material solidifies). Para. [0006], [0014], [0043].
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘986, as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, DE ‘986 does not teach the intersection of the detection region of the first sensor unit with the detection region of the third sensor unit, with one detection region completely containing the other.
However, DE ‘986 teaches that the monitoring area can be positioned variably and adjusted across the construction site, with the monitoring areas preceding, tracking, or offsetting the irradiation beam. Para. [0009], [0010], [0014], [0017], [0021]. By adjusting the monitoring, the irradiation process can be controlled, thereby improving quality control. Para. [0014]. For example, the size of the melt pool or the energy applied can be adjusted when the irradiation process is regulated. Para. [0013].
Because the monitoring area (detection region) collects important information about the build process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have positioned the multiple monitoring areas wherever build data need to be collected because the build data would enable the device operator to manufacture objects with greater precision and quality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have concentrically overlapped the monitoring areas because the arrangement would enable measurements to be taken within the target area and on the fringes of the target area, thereby increasing the reference data stored and used for future use.
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘986, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of DE 10218127987 (A1) to Wagner et al. (“DE ‘987”) and further in view of US 2018/0281067 (A1) to Small et al. (“Small”) and US 2019/0217422 (A1) to Kramer et al. (equivalent to WO 2017/137022 (A1)) (“Kramer”).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, DE ‘986 teaches that irradiation causes the build-up material, which is in powdered form, to become solidified (irradiation of the part of the test body region by the second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit takes place following an irradiation process in which initially powdery building material was solidified). Para. [0007], [0013], [0015], [0026], [0038].
DE ‘986 does not teach subsequently irradiating the already solidified part in a pulse-like manner such that it does not melt.
DE ‘987 is directed to a method of operating a manufacturing device for the additive manufacture of a three-dimensional object by layer-by-layer application and selective solidification. Claim 1. The method includes direction a monitoring area onto a target point, irradiating the target point by a beam, and detecting radiation emitted in the monitoring areas. Claim 1; para. [0009], [0013], [0017].
In an irradiation process, the amount of energy is applied in such a way that the already solidified build-up material is not melted by the irradiation. Para. [0009], [0012]. The sensor unit detects the radiation emitted in the monitoring area when the target point is heated up and/or cooled down. Para. [0010], [0014]. In this evaluation step, heating or cooling curves and heat capacity can be determined. Para. [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have irradiated the already solidified body with a beam without melting it because the second irradiation process promotes data gathering of the build material, permitting the user to add more points to the reference data.
DE ‘987 does not specify that the irradiation is performed in a pulse-like manner.
Small is directed to scanner fiducials and laser processing. Para. [0002]. Known laser systems include those that continuous, quasi-continuous, or pulsed. Para. [0039].
Kramer is directed to methods and devices for analysis of energy beams in additive manufacturing systems. Abstract. The systems can be equipped with a ballistic detector that receives temperature information by measuring temperature increases from a laser pulse turned on for a limited time. Para. [0104]. The performance of the energy of the laser beam can be determined with high accuracy. Para. [0104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a pulse beam in the process of DE ‘986 in view of DE ‘987 because pulsed beams are one of three known options of laser beams in an additive manufacturing system, and the reaction of the build material with smaller amounts of energy delivered by a pulsed beam can be monitored with high precision.
Regarding claim 14, DE ‘987 teaches that the values acquired by the sensor can be compared with data originating from an identical location on an identical object constructed in a previous construction process (first measurement signals are detected by the first sensor unit and compared with measurement signals from an identical measurement from a previous building process of a previous test body). Para. [0017].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘986, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0184893 (A1) to Dave et al. (“Dave”).
Regarding claim 16, DE ‘986 does not teach performing metallurgical analysis of a test body built in the test body region.
Dave is directed to a quality assurance system for additive manufacturing. Abstract. Sensors monitor and characterize the heating and cooling that occurs during formation of each layer of the part. Para. [0033]. Recorded temperatures for each part can be compared and contrasted with recorded data from acceptable parts. Para. [0033].
The process further includes the building of a witness coupon (404) (test body), which allows the sampling of every production build and which represents a small and manageable but still representative amount of material. Para. [0046]. It can be destructively tested for metallurgical integrity, physical properties, and metallurgical integrity (performing metallurgical analysis of a test body built in the test body region). Para. [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed metallurgical testing, as taught by Dave, on the test objects in DE ‘986 because metallurgical testing would permit the use to evaluate the results of build parameters and their effects on the build material, which could further inform future fabrication processes for additional objects.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prexler, as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, Prexler teaches that there may be multiple sensor units, as noted above, but does not teach that their monitoring (detection) regions intersect with one monitoring region completely containing another one.
However, Prexler teaches that the monitoring region can have an arbitrary shape and, for example, comprise the entire build area. Para. [0008]. The extent of the monitoring region within the build area advantageously requires a smaller deflection of the beams, which results in a higher precision, and more freedom in building is enabled. Para. [0008].
Therefore, if one monitoring region covers the entire build area, then a smaller monitoring region would be completely encompassed and intersected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made at least the first and third monitoring regions intersect, with one smaller and fully encompassed by the other, because the smaller monitoring region would permit more fine tuning of the area being monitored.
Regarding claim 15, Prexler teaches that one or several calibration objects can be additionally built in the overlap area, which are only built for the purpose of calibration or building two or more objects (building two test bodies). Para. [0043], [0059]. The calibration method comprises a step of evaluating an output signal of the second monitoring unit. Para. [0011]. Effects caused by the beam impacting on the building material, such as heating of the incidence region up to a resulting melt pool, can be monitored, for example. Para. [0011]. The output signals can be evaluated, for example by determining the position of the maxima and/or minima or by comparing the signal forms with stored comparison signal curves. Para. [0066]. Monitoring includes detecting differential signals from output signals of sensors and compensating for disturbances, intensity, scattering, for example. Para. [0047], [0050], [0054].
Since the objects are built for the purpose of calibration and replicating desired build results, it follows that the irradiation beam is identical in each case when building two test bodies. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented identical detection by the second sensor unit because the characteristics monitored in one object must be identical to the characteristics monitored in a second object in order to ensure both objects are identical and do not deviate from one another.
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prexler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Small and Kramer.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Prexler teaches that the beam of radiation is suited for solidifying the building material (irradiation process in which initially powdery building material was solidified, the detection region of the first sensor unit is a solidified region of the building material). Para. [0014], [0018]. A target beam and/or a laser beam whose energy is not sufficient to solidify the building material is incorporated for determining correction data (irradiation of the part of the test body region by a second beam directed onto the test body region by the second scanning unit takes place onto an already solidified part of the building material in the test body region and in such a way that the already solidified building material does not melt). Para. [0014], [0019], [0069]. This makes it possible, for example, to compensate for detected deviations between two scanners during the production of an object by appropriately controlling one or both scanners using the correction data. Para. [0019].
Prexler does not specify that the irradiation is performed in a pulse-like manner.
Small is directed to scanner fiducials and laser processing. Para. [0002]. Known laser systems include those that continuous, quasi-continuous, or pulsed. Para. [0039].
Kramer is directed to methods and devices for analysis of energy beams in additive manufacturing systems. Abstract. The systems can be equipped with a ballistic detector that receives temperature information by measuring temperature increases from a laser pulse turned on for a limited time. Para. [0104]. The performance of the energy of the laser beam can be determined with high accuracy. Para. [0104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a pulse beam in the process of Prexler because pulsed beams are one of three known options of laser beams in an additive manufacturing system, and the reaction of the build material with smaller amounts of energy delivered by a pulsed beam can be monitored with high precision.
Regarding claim 14, Prexler teaches that one or several calibration objects can be additionally built in the overlap area, which are only built for the purpose of calibration (previous building process of a test body). Para. [0059]. At least one calibration method is carried out before the build process and/or during the build process. Para. [0020]-[0023]. With the scanners being calibrated before production (para. [0053], [0058]), the calibration data informs or influences the build of the next or subsequent object (first measurement signals detected by the first sensor unit are compared with measurement signals from a previous building).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prexler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dave.
Regarding claim 16, Prexler does not teach performing metallurgical analysis of a test body built in the test body region.
Dave is directed to a quality assurance system for additive manufacturing. Abstract. Sensors monitor and characterize the heating and cooling that occurs during formation of each layer of the part. Para. [0033]. Recorded temperatures for each part can be compared and contrasted with recorded data from acceptable parts. Para. [0033].
The process further includes the building of a witness coupon (404) (test body), which allows the sampling of every production build and which represents a small and manageable but still representative amount of material. Para. [0046]. It can be destructively tested for metallurgical integrity, physical properties, and metallurgical integrity (performing metallurgical analysis of a test body built in the test body region). Para. [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed metallurgical testing, as taught by Dave, on the calibration objects (test objects) in Prexler because metallurgical testing would permit the use to evaluate the results of build parameters and their effects on the build material, which could further inform future fabrication processes for additional objects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is not an abstract idea because the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept, a certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. Applicant states that the claimed method is directed to a method of operating a manufacturing device for the additive manufacture of a three-dimensional object and that the method includes physical steps and therefore is not abstract.
In response, the claims recite steps of evaluating measurement signals and a step of comparing the values of the test body with the values of the component. Steps of evaluating and comparing are abstract ideas because they are mental processes in which determinations are made in the human mind. This is supported by MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in which examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Thus, the claimed invention recites abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that that claim 1 provides a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test because the invention reflects a technical improvement directed to a practical application. Applicant states that the present invention makes it possible to use a sensor that is not only used when a test body is being built but also used or can be used when the regular components are created. Applicant further states that the component and test body can be built under the guidance of a detection region, and it is possible to draw conclusions about the actual components from the results of destructive examination of the test body.
In response, this is not persuasive because the additional elements recited in the claimed invention do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite an irradiation step where additional portions of the component are built by controlling parameters based on deviations. This building step is recited at a high level of generality. It does not meaningfully impose limits on the claimed process and does not integrate the abstract idea (data collection, evaluation, and comparison) into the process such that meaningful action is taken, as the claim fails to mention which parameter(s) are controlled and how the parameter(s) are controlled.
The phrase “based on” lacks specificity because basing control on a deviation, without elaboration, does not tell the user how to proceed with the build process if/when there is a deviation. For instance, the existence of a deviation could mean that corrective action is taken during the build to ensure that the component is identical to the test body, or it could mean that corrective action takes place but produces a component that is close to, but not identical, to the test body. However, the existence of a deviation could mean that the user takes no action and the build process continues. Without particulars, the user is not advised what to do with the comparison and how that comparison affects the build.
Applicant argues that the prior art documents do not teach irradiating the build area to build additional parts of the component by controlling one or more parameters based on any deviations.
In response, DE ‘986 teaches collecting reference data from previously built layers or from the build process of a parallel or previously built component (para. [0015]). Adjustments to the build process are made if a deviation is detected (para. [0015]). Prexler teaches dynamic and continuous calibration for obtaining dimensional accuracy and precision (para. [0010], [0064]). Correction data for producing the object can be obtained by detecting deviations in at least one locations of the working plane (para. [0047]). During production of the object, control of the scanner can then be corrected using the correction data (para. [0047]). Thus, the prior art documents do teach building an object in accordance with corrections based on reference data obtained from test bodies or calibration bodies.
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 VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
January 6, 2026