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 .
The amendment filed December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 22-27 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eibl (US 2016/0114427) in view of Ishikawa (US 2003/0214571) and Zhu (CN1593817; paragraph references to attached English language translation).
Claim 22: Eible discloses an apparatus for forming a build in a powder bed (fig. 2; ¶ 33). The apparatus includes a diode laser fiber array including a plurality of diode lasers (5) and a plurality of optical fibers (3) corresponding to the plurality of diode lasers (fig. 2; ¶ 33); a controller configured to control the diode laser fiber array to emit a plurality of laser beams from selected fibers of the diode laser fiber array onto the powder bed (¶¶ 33-34), the selected fibers of the diode laser fiber array corresponding to a pattern of a layer of the build and simultaneously melt a powder in the powder bed corresponding to the pattern of the layer of the build (¶¶ 33-34); wherein the plurality of optical fibers are configured to respectively receive one of the plurality of laser beams from a respective one of the plurality of diode lasers and configured to emit the plurality of laser beams (fig. 2).
Eible is silent as to having lenses positioned at the proximal and distal ends of the fibers. However, Ishikawa discloses an apparatus for forming a build in a powder bed (¶ 20), which includes a diode laser fiber array including a plurality of diode lasers (LD1-7) and a plurality of optical fibers (30) each having a proximal end and a distal end and corresponding to the plurality of diode lasers (fig. 9A; ¶ 160); a plurality of first lenses (11) positioned between the plurality of diode lasers and the proximal ends of the plurality of optical fibers (figs. 11-12; ¶168); a second lens (510) located at the distal ends of the plurality of optical fibers (figs. 44A-B). As taught by Ishikawa, providing lenses at the proximal and distal ends of the fibers allows the laser beam to be effectively focused (¶¶ 177-180, 384). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have positioned lenses at the proximal and distal ends of the fibers of Eibl to allow the laser beams to be effectively focused.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhu discloses an apparatus including a laser fiber array including a plurality of lasers and a plurality of optical fibers (3) corresponding to the plurality of lasers, and a plurality of lenses (lens array 5) located at the distal ends of the plurality of optical fibers, wherein each of the plurality of second lenses is aligned with only a respective one of the plurality of optical fibers (fig. 1) and wherein the plurality of optical fibers are configured to emit the plurality of laser beams only through a respective one of the plurality of lenses (fig. 1). As taught by Zhu, the lens array allows for collimation or assembly from the output from each of the fibers of the fiber array (¶ 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have positioned the lens array of Zhu at the distal end of the fibers of Eibl to allow the output of each of the fibers of the fiber array to be collimated or assembled onto the working plane.
Claim 23: Eible discloses the controller is further configured to control a duration of each of the plurality of laser beams (¶ 34).
Claims 24-25: Eible discloses the array to emit the plurality of laser beams from the plurality of optical fibers adjacent to the pattern of the layer of the build and heat the powder adjacent to the powder of the layer in the layer prior to the build layer of the build which would control a cooling rate of the melted powder as the object is built up layer by layer (¶¶ 33-34).
Claim 26: Eible discloses the plurality of optical fibers being provided in a plurality of linear arrays (fig. 4).
Claim 27: Eible discloses the plurality of linear arrays being arranged in a closed packed configuration (fig. 4).
Claim 36: Ishikawa discloses the second lenses are configured to collimate the laser beams (figs. 45A-B).
Claim 37: Eibl discloses a lens for divergence (fig. 1).
Claim 38: Eibl discloses an actuator configured to move the support, wherein the controller is configured to control the actuator to adjust the distance between the powder bed and the ends of the plurality of optical fibers (fig. 4; ¶35).
Claim 39: Eibl discloses a support configured to support the powder bed at a distance from ends of the plurality of optical fibers (fig. 4).
Claims 28 - 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eibl (US 2016/0114427) in view of Ishikawa (US 2003/0214571) and Zhu (CN1593817; paragraph references to attached English language translation), as applied to claim 22 above, in view of Farmer (US 9,535,217).
Claim 28: Eible is silent as to the optical fibers including a core, cladding surrounding the core, and a buffer surrounding the cladding. However, Farmer discloses a diode laser fiber array including a plurality of diode lasers and a plurality of optical fibers corresponding to the plurality of diode lasers, wherein the fibers include a core (102), a cladding (104) surrounding the core, and a buffer (106) surrounding the cladding (col. 7, lines 53-60; figs. 1A-1B). As taught by Farmer, optical fibers including a core, a cladding surrounding the core, and a buffer surrounding the cladding effectively direct light output from coupled lasers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have utilized the core, cladding and buffer of Farmer in the fibers of Eible to effectively direct light output from the lasers.
Claim 29: Farmer discloses the core and cladding being formed of silica, and a refractive index of the core being larger than a refractive index of the cladding (col. 7, line 53 – col. 8, line 65).
Claims 30 and 34: Farmer discloses the core diameter and optical fiber eiamter can be varied (col. 7, line 65 – col. 8, line 29), but is silent as to the claimed diameter range. However, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from having the claimed diameter ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a suitable diameter to effectively direct light output from the lasers. The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claims 31 and 33: Farmer is silent as to the claimed thickness. However, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from the buffer or cladding having the claimed thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a suitable thickness to effectively direct light output from the lasers. The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claim 32: Farmer discloses the buffer being acrylate (col. 7, line 64).
Claim 35: Farmer discloses the fibers having circular cross sections (col. 12, lines 4-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights