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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 12, 14, 17-20, and 23 are pending. Claims 1-11, 13, and 21-22 are cancelled. Changes to the preamble, changes to the steps and substeps claimed for emitting the laser beam onto the layer with a continuously adjusted power, and particularly substep, s7 have overcome the previously set forth rejection of claims 12, 14, and 17-20 under35 USC 101.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s):
(i) for each previously consolidated point i where i = 1,2, ... (n-1), determining an estimated temperature…
(ii) determining a temperature correction…
(iii) estimating a temperature…
(iv) calculating an adjusted power…
which are mathematical concepts of determining an estimated temperature, determining a correction, estimating a temperature, and calculating a power.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 23 incorporates steps (i)-(iii) by invoking generic dependence which may be met by mental consideration. Claim 23 further, generically claims that adjusting the power Pn is in some way based on the estimated temperature, without setting forth a particular basis, and the adjusting and emitting steps amount to mere instructions to apply the mathematical concepts. Further, unlike claim 12, claim 23 does not link the mathematical concepts to the result of “controlling a maximum temperature field” recited in the preamble of claim 23.
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 23 recites the steps of
applying a layer…
emitting a laser beam at a first moment…
emitting the laser beam onto the layer with a continuously adjusted power…
adjusting the power of the laser beam…
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)).
Claimed steps addition to the mathematical concepts are directed to the well understood steps of applying a layer of powder material, emitting a laser beam to consolidate a zone comprising a point, and continuously adjusting power of the laser beam to consolidate a series of points. See the below rejection over Snis (US20130300035).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snis (US20130300035). Snis is cited in the IDS dated July 28, 2021.
Regarding claim 23, Snis discloses a process for a selective additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object ([0001], claim 11, Fig. 1). Snis discloses that too high of a local temperature and inhomogeneous temperature distribution are problems encountered in the prior art, within the background of the reference [0003]. Snis discloses that temperature control in a layer solves the identified problem disclosing “that it provides for a thorough control of the temperature and the temperature distribution of the selected area [an aera is within a layer] 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]. Snis therefore discloses that the process controls a maximum temperature field in the additive manufacturing process [0003], [0028].
Snis discloses applying a layer of an additive manufacturing powder on a support or on a previously consolidated part of the three-dimensional object ([0011], claim 11, Fig. 1). Snis discloses emitting a laser beam (energy from an energy gun [0011], the energy is a “real beam” [0012], a laser gun as the energy gun [0046]) onto a point at a first moment (any moment
t
, wherein
t
<
t
j
[0074]) of a first zone of the layer so as to consolidate a first zone of the layer (Fig. 2, [0011], [0015], [0040], [0052]), thereby consolidating all points within the zone, which would necessarily include the first point. Snis discloses emitting the laser beam onto the layer with a continuously adjusted power (at least one of the beam parameters, i.e. the beam speed, power and/or spot size, is adjusted over a certain portion of the intended beam path [0018]) so as to sweep an ordered series of points of the layer [0071-78], [0081]. Snis discloses emitting a laser beam onto a series of points with adjusted power at some later moment so as to consolidate a zone of the layer (claim 11, [0016], [0046] [0075], [0081]). A consolidated zone would necessarily comprise at least one consolidated point.
Snis discloses that for each point, defining a function ΔT (calculation) [0056-74] depending on a length (distances [0042], [0062-66]) and a duration (time dependent temperature distribution) [0057], (time dependent temperature distribution starting [0071]). Snis discloses that the defined function is an estimated temperature variation of the layer ([0012], [0014], [0018-19], [0036], [0046], [0070-71], claim 13). Snis discloses that the estimated temperature variation is an estimate of a temperature variation at a point of the layer separated from a previously consolidated point of the layer by the length ([0042],
T
'
(
x
,
y
,
z
,
t
)
[0070-75], particularly [0075]). Snis discloses that the temperature variation is caused by an emission of a laser beam at a moment of consolidating a previously consolidated zone of the layer comprising the first point (after the beam has scanned one line) [0002], [0011-12], [0071-72]. Snis discloses that the temperature variation is estimated at a moment
(
t
j
)
[0074], the second moment being temporally separated from the first moment by the duration
t
-
t
j
[0074].
Snis discloses each portion of the layer on which the calculation is based is a maximum distance from the point of calculation ([0036], claim 19), thereby disclosing that calculation considers points within a maximum distance which meets the limitation wherein the estimated temperature variation is non-zero only if the distance rm is less than a predetermined spatial neighborhood Vl. Snis further discloses that the position is related to the time [0020], [0106]; therefore, in limiting the distance (claim 19) Snis indirectly discloses limiting the time interval of the measurement, which would manipulate the temporal neighborhood step recited in claim 23. Snis further discloses estimating a temperature increase in a step-wise estimate at
t
=
t
j
[0072-75], and that
t
j
is the time at which at line j was finished [0074], thereby indirectly disclosing some interval
t
i
-
t
j
;
i
<
j
, wherein the interval is within some temporal neighborhood.
Snis discloses determining a temperature correction for the point n equal to a sum of the estimated temperature variations from each previously consolidated point (overall sum shown and described in paragraphs [0066], [0081] and eqs. 3 and 6 of Snis, wherein Snis shows that the calculation is performed at a sum of points in paragraph [0067] and eq. 4). Snis discloses that the estimated temperature of the powder before consolidation at some point is equal to a sum of an initial temperature of the layer (
T
0
) and the temperature correction ([0066], [0081], eqs. 3 and 6). Snis discloses adjusting a power of the laser beam to an adjusted power according to the estimated temperature prior to consolidation ([0012], [0014], [0018-19], [0036], [0046], claim 13), which meets the broadly claimed calculating an adjusted power Pn for the point based on the estimated temperature of the powder before consolidation. Note that claim 23 does not specify how the adjusted power is based on the estimated temperature; therefore, any consideration of the estimated temperature in adjusting power meets this limitation. Snis discloses emitting a laser beam onto the second point with the adjusted power at some later moment so as to consolidate a zone of the layer, the second comprising the consolidated points (claim 11, [0016], [0046] [0075], [0081]).
As Snis, applied above manipulates a series of steps encompassed by the range of specific activity of the process recited in claim 23, when claim limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the speciification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding new claim 23, applicant argues that claim 23 is directed to patent eligible subject matter for the reasons that claim 12 as presently amended is now directed to patent eligible subject matter. This argument is not persuasive because claim 23 links steps (i)-(iv) to a generic application through a series of high-level general statements of basis whereas independent claim 12 recites specific formulas for incorporating each mathematical concept into the series of steps. For example, compare the recitation “for each previously consolidated point i where i = 1,2, ... (n-1), determining an estimated temperature variation at the point n caused by consolidation of the point i the estimated temperature variation depending on a distance rni, between the point n and the point i and on a duration (tn - ti) between the moment tn and a moment ti at which the point i was consolidated, wherein the estimated temperature variation is non-zero only if the distance rm is less than a predetermined spatial neighborhood Vl and the duration (t - t,) is less than a predetermined temporal neighborhood Vt” in claim 23 with the temperature variation determination of claim 12 for which an estimated temperature variation is derived from the function
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
according to the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
70
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Further, in step s7, claim 12 claims the emission of the laser beam onto the point n being controlled by the adjusted power [the same adjusted power which depends on the temperature calculation according to a specific formula] that is determined based on the target temperature Ts and the estimated temperature of the powder before consolidation
T
p
t
n
in order to control a maximum temperature field at the point n, whereas claim 23 does not appear to recite such a limitation linking the mathematical concepts to the results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14, 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 12 claims a process of controlling a maximum temperature field of a layer of powder during selective additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object. Claim 12 claims applying a layer of an additive manufacturing powder and defining a function
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
, the function
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
itself deriving an estimated temperature variation of the layer. Claim 12 claims the temperature variation starting upon an emission of a laser beam at a moment
t
i
so as to consolidate a first zone i of the layer comprising the point i. Claim 12 claims emitting the laser beam at a moment
t
i
to consolidate a first zone i of the layer comprising the point i. Claim 12 claims emitting the laser beam onto the layer with a continuously adjusted power so as to sweep an ordered series of N points. Claim 12 claims emitting the laser beam onto the layer with a continuously adjusted power. Claim 12 claims performing substeps s1-s8, which ultimately determine the adjusted power. Among the claimed substeps, substep s2 in particular claims for each i=1,2...(n-1) determining an estimated temperature variation derived from the function
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
according to the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
70
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for which claim 12 defines parameters within the claim. Claim 12 further claims determining a temperature correction equal to
PNG
media_image2.png
95
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, thereby claiming that the temperature dependence relies on the specifically claimed temperature variation. Claim 12 claims estimating an estimated temperature
T
p
t
n
represented as
PNG
media_image3.png
59
277
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the second term of which is mathematically identical to the formula for the temperature correction which depends on the function for the temperature variation. Claim 12 claims calculating an adjusted power Pn as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
71
355
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, thereby calculating the adjusted power Pn by a specific dependence on the estimated temperature
T
p
t
n
. Claim 12 defines the formula inputs within the claim. Claim 12 claims adjusting a power of the laser beam to the adjusted power Pn and emitting the laser beam at the moment tn onto the point n with the adjusted power Pn at the moment tn for the point n so as to consolidate a zone n of the layer at the moment tn. Claim 12 claims that the series of step result in controlling the temperature at the zone n at the moment tn.
Prior office action(s) rejected claim 12 and claims depending thereon under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea. Through claimed substeps s1-s8, claim 12 explains how each of the recited mathematical concepts builds upon each other, that the power is continuously adjusted according to specific relationships and that the continuously adjusted power results in an improvement. Claim 12 as presently amended successfully integrate the mathematical concept(s) into a practical application, which is sufficient to meet the subject matter eligibility requirements as described in MPEP 2106 and subsections.
Prior office action(s) relied on Snis (US20130300035) to anticipate claim 12 as previously presented. Snis is the prior art reference of record closest to independent claim 12 as presently entered. Snis discloses several formulas for estimating a calculated temperature to control temperature [0066-100], but none of formulas have the form
PNG
media_image1.png
70
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claim 12 defines over Snis at least in claiming for each i=1,2...(n-1) determining an estimated temperature variation derived from the function
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
according to the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
70
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein inputs to the above formula are set forth in claim 12.
Cernuschi (Cernuschi, F., et al. "In-plane thermal diffusivity evaluation by infrared thermography." Review of scientific instruments 72.10 (2001): 3988-3995), cited in in the office action mailed May 7, 2024, discloses an equation (Eq. 5) to approximate the temperature distribution on the surface of a medium of thickness L heated by a laser with a spot radius R as:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wherein
a
,
ε
, and
Q
have the same meaning as in present claim 12. Eq. 5 of Cernuschi is the prior art equation closest to the claimed formula for temperature variation. Eq. 5 of Cernuschi differs from the claimed formula for temperature variation in that Eq. 5 of Cernuschi includes the factor
∑
n
=
-
∞
∞
exp
-
n
-
1
L
2
α
t
, wherein this factor is equal to 1 in the claimed temperature variation. As
L
→
0
,
∑
n
=
-
∞
∞
exp
-
n
-
1
L
2
α
t
→
1
. Snis considers melt depth, and therefore the thickness in estimating the temperature ([0032], [0040], [0065], and particularly the z-direction considerations in [0090-91]). In combining the teachings of Cernuschi with the disclosure of Snis, one of ordinary skill in the art likely would not have arrived at a result which manipulates a calculation in the limit of a zero-thickness layer. Claim 12 defines over Snis in view of Cernuschi, at least in claiming for each i=1,2...(n-1) determining an estimated temperature variation derived from the function
Δ
T
r
n
i
,
t
n
-
t
i
according to the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
70
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 14, 17-20 depend on claim 12. Dependent claims define over the prior art at least for the reasons given above with respect to claim 12.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights