17426220DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 12, 14, and 17-20 are pending. Claims 1-11, 13, 15-16, and 21-22 are cancelled. Amendment has overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, the claim(s) recite(s):
“(b) defining a function
Δ
T
r
21
,
t
2
-
t
1
depending on a length r21 and a duration (t2-t1), the function
Δ
T
r
21
,
t
2
-
t
1
being an estimated temperature variation of the layer…”;
“(e) determining the second point of the layer separated from the first point by a distance r21”;
“(f) determining a value of the function
Δ
T
r
21
,
t
2
-
t
1
” according to the claimed formula;
“(s1) for each i =1,2...(n-1) determining a value
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
” according to the claimed formula;
“(s2) determining a temperature correction for the n-th point, the temperature correction being equal to
∑
i
=
1
n
-
1
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
or a sum of values of
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
for all i =1,2,...(n-1)”;
“(s3) determining a value of a temperature of the powder before consolidation
T
p
(
t
n
)
at the moment tp at the n-th point of the layer, the value of
T
p
t
n
being equal to a sum of an initial temperature T0 of the layer and the temperature correction for the n-th point”, and
“(s4) calculating an adjusted power Pn for the n-th point based on the temperature of the powder before consolidation
T
p
(
t
n
)
” as the formula which follows,
which are mathematical concepts of defining functions, determining values of functions, and performing a calculation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 12 invokes the claimed mathematical concepts by generally linking the defining, determining, and calculating steps to the field of selective additive manufacturing. Limitations which link the mathematical concepts to the field of additive manufacturing are:
“(g) adjusting a power of the laser beam to a first adjusted power according to the value of the function
Δ
T
r
21
,
t
2
-
t
1
in order to control a maximum temperature field across the first and second points”;
“(h) emitting the laser beam at the second moment onto the second point with the first adjusted power so as to consolidate a second zone of the layer…”;
“(k) emitting the laser beam onto the layer with a continuously adjusted power comprising setting n=2 and performing substeps”, and
“(s5) adjusting a power of the laser beam to the adjusted power Pn for the n-th point”
The adjusting steps (g) and (s5), and emitting steps (h), and (k), associate points within the layer to parameters within the mathematical concept and to some extent implement the mathematical concept. Such implementation amounts to instructions to apply the mathematical concepts to a powder bed additive manufacturing process.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Beyond the mathematical concepts and instructions to apply the mathematical concepts, claim 12 claims:
“(a) applying a layer of an additive manufacturing powder on a support or on a previously consolidated part of the three-dimensional object”;
“(c) emitting the laser beam at the first moment onto the first point of the layer so as to consolidate the first zone of the layer comprising the first point”;
“(d) consolidating the first zone”;
“(i) consolidating the second zone, wherein emitting a laser beam onto the first point so as to consolidate the first zone of the layer comprising the first point is performed at an instant ti, the first point being associated to an integer n=1”;
“(j) emitting the laser beam onto the layer with a continuously adjusted power so as to sweep an ordered series of N points of the layer…”.
An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Steps (a), (c), (d), (i), and (j) are directed to the well understood steps of applying a layer of powder material, emitting a laser beam to consolidate the material, adjusting power of the laser beam during production and consolidating a new portion of applied powder material. See the Snis (US20130300035) reference, cited in prior office action(s), particularly background paragraphs thereof.
While cases have found that additional elements are more than "apply it" or are not "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP 2106.05(f)), the specification does not describe the invention such that a specific improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Though the present invention claims particular formulae for achieving the temperature control, the claimed formulae are directed to mathematical concepts. The “judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. The problem which the present invention appears to identify is unfavorable effects of high temperatures and temperature gradients over the course of an additive manufacturing build, which the present invention solves by temperature control (Page 1 lines 14-28). The concept of temperature control to avoid overly high temperature and temperature gradients is such a well understood problem that Snis discloses the problem in the background of the reference [0003], and Snis discloses that temperature control is what solves the identified problem disclosing “that it provides for a thorough control of the temperature and the temperature distribution of the selected area and makes it possible to plan the fusion step in a sophisticated way. In turn, this can be used to avoid reaching too high temperatures (which may destroy the product being built), to obtain a homogeneous [fewer gradients] temperature distribution (which improves the product properties by reducing stress and crack formation) and to speed up the production (which makes the production more cost-effective)” [0028]. The mere concept of controlling temperature as a solution to powder bed additive manufacturing problems, therefore cannot be considered an improvement in additive manufacturing technology. Even when the claimed mathematical concepts are considered in combination with other claimed limitations, the claimed process appears to be just one scheme to control temperature in an additive manufacturing process which is not an improvement over established additive manufacturing processes wherein temperature is controlled.
Regarding claim 14, the additional limitations in claim 14 apply the mathematical concept to the claimed additive manufacturing process at the calculated adjusted power Pn until the n-th point being consolidated in the N-th point. The additional limitations recited in claim 14 provide further instructions on applying the claimed mathematical concepts; therefore, claim 14 does not further integrate the claimed mathematical concepts.
Claim 17 further specifies steps directed to determining mathematical relationships without further integrating the mathematical relationships or amounting to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea(s). The additional limitations recited in claims 18 and 19 do not render claim 12 significantly more than the estimation of temperature variation. Claim 20 which limits when the estimation is obtained does not meaningfully integrate the estimation into the claimed process or amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant argues that “[t]he process of additive manufacturing of independent claim 12 is tied to a particular device and includes physical steps to adjust the power of a laser when performing the physical act of consolidating a layer of additive manufacturing powder”. This argument is not persuasive because “the physical act of consolidating a layer of additive manufacturing powder” describes the well understood, conventional functioning of a powder bed fusion system, not a particular additive manufacturing system specific to the claimed method. The reference Snis (US 20130300035), cited in several prior office actions states “[e]quipment for producing a three-dimensional object layer by layer [additive manufacturing] using a powdery material which can be fused together and solidified [consolidating] by irradiating it with a high-energy beam of electromagnetic radiation or electrons are known from e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 4,863,538, U.S. Pat. No. 5,647,931 and SE524467” [0002]. Given the characterization by Snis, consolidating a layer of additive manufacturing powder was conventionally known. The references U.S. Pat. No. 4,863,538, U.S. Pat. No. 5,647,931 and SE524467, cited by Snis further establish consolidating a layer of additive manufacturing powder as known. The particularity of the machine is a consideration in step 2B of the subject matter eligibility determination, discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b). MPEP 2106.05(b) consistently determines that a general purpose machine which implements a judicial exception is not a particular machine; therefore, implementation of the claimed mathematical concepts on a conventional additive manufacturing system does not integrate the mathematical concepts into a particular machine.
Applicant further argues the rejection under 35 USC 101 by purporting that the claim results in a more uniform temperature achieved along a path of travel of the laser beam, which leads to reduced loss of additive manufacturing powder material by evaporation, reduced residual stresses, reduced local deformations and cracks, and overall improvement in quality of a product manufactured by the claimed process, purporting that the claimed method is an improvement in the technical field of additive manufacturing over prior processes, which fail to limit the maximum temperature achieved by the powder below the evaporation temperature. Improvements to a technical field are considered both in Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)) and in Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05(a)) of the subject matter eligibility consideration process.
With respect to both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in showing that the purported improvement integrates the mathematical concepts into a particular application (Step 2A Prong Two) or that the purported improvement renders the claim significantly more than the mathematical concept (Step 2B) because independent claim 12 does not include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification, commensurate in scope with the claim. Temperature thresholds are recited in dependent claim 17, and these thresholds are limited to the temperature of just one point. Even claim 17 is open to significant variability up to that threshold. Claim 12 is not even limited to a temperature threshold and encompasses any process which adjust power according to the claimed steps, regardless of whether or not the adjusted power results in the purported improvement. None of the temperatures recited in claims 12 or 17 are limited by the evaporation temperature of the powder. Further, claim 12 is open to additive manufacturing processes which stop adjusting laser power after N steps, and to processes, in which previously consolidated layers were not irradiated with an adjusted power. In these scenarios, claim 12 is open to system temperatures which could cause powder irradiation, or above those modeled with the claimed equations.
In the recently designated precedential Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision), the claims recited “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task”, thereby limiting the claimed invention by the purported improvement. Present claim 12, as worded, is not limited to processes which result in the purported improvement.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the purported improvement further are not persuasive in showing that claim 12 amounts to significantly more than the mathematical concepts because an improvement over prior additive manufacturing processes which fail to limit the maximum temperature achieved by the powder below the evaporation temperature is not an improvement over established additive manufacturing processes which do limit the maximum temperature or over established additive manufacturing processes which limit parameters to prevent evaporation. As noted in the above rejection, the concept of temperature control to avoid overly high temperature and temperature gradients is such a well understood problem that Snis discloses the problem in the background of the reference [0003], and Snis discloses that temperature control is what solves the identified problem disclosing “that it provides for a thorough control of the temperature and the temperature distribution of the selected area and makes it possible to plan the fusion step in a sophisticated way. In turn, this can be used to avoid reaching too high temperatures (which may destroy the product being built), to obtain a homogeneous [fewer gradients] temperature distribution (which improves the product properties by reducing stress and crack formation) and to speed up the production (which makes the production more cost-effective)” [0028]. Controlling temperature in powder bed additive manufacturing is also a concept established in the art, as seen in US20180065179 (abstract, [0032], [0073]); US 20180169970 [0025]; or US 20170282296 [0002], [0049], [0101].Throughout the specification, and applicant’s arguments, the claimed process is described as better because the claimed process controls temperature; however, this qualitative improvement is established in the art. Neither the present specification, nor applicant’s arguments provide evidence, commensurate in scope with the claimed method, that the claimed method yield better results than established methods which control temperature in an additive manufacturing layer. Note that the examples in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) consistently show that an improvement to a field of technology which renders the claimed invention as a whole something more (Step 2B) is an improvement over the conventional approaches in that field of technology.
Applicant’s arguments that the scheme disclosed by Snis is different from that claimed are not persuasive in overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, because the arguments do not show that the claimed process is better than that disclosed by Snis. While calculations according to the particular equations disclosed by Snis likely would yield different values from those of calculations according the equations recited in claim 12, applicant’s response does not show that the results are better (more uniform temperature, decreased degree of evaporation, etc.) than those of Snis. As “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”, (MPEP 2106.05(a)), absent evidence that the claimed process is an improvement over that disclosed by Snis, differences in the particular equations alone, are not an improvement which render the claimed method significantly more.
Applicant is reminded that examiner has already found claims to distinguish over Snis from a prior art (35 USC 102 or 103) perspective, and has indicated on the record that limitations of presently entered claim 12 have overcome previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 over Snis.
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 SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738