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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-19, and 53-61 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first sensor comprising a first sensor array including an array first sensor…” The claim cites a first sensor, a first sensory array, and an array first sensor. It is unclear if the array first sensor and array second sensor is part of the first sensor array or if the first sensor is comprised of a first sensor array, an array first sensor, and an array second sensor. Additionally, the language of using first sensor, first sensor array, and array first sensor is confusing. For examination, the limitation will be interpreted as – a first sensor comprising a first sensor array comprised of an array first sensor and an array second sensor--.
Claim 58 recites “a second sensor comprising a second sensor array including an array third sensor…” The claim cites a second sensor and a second sensor array. It is unclear if the second sensor array and array third sensor, and array fourth sensor are separate sensors. For examination, the limitation will be interpreted as – a second sensor comprising a second sensor array comprised of an array third sensor and an array fourth sensor--.
Claims 2-6, 8, 11-19, 53-57, and 59-61 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 19, and 57-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Goldfine (US 20180264590 A1) in view of Sargent (US 2016/0339519 A1).
Claim 1. Goldfine discloses a sensor system (instrument 110, Fig. 1) for a three-dimensional (3D) printer (3D printer, abstract), comprising:
a first sensor (sensor 120 may be a combination of sensing technologies, par. 48) comprising a first sensor array (sensor 120) including
wherein the array second sensor is configured to sense second information relating to the material in the print area of the 3D printer (MWM-array sensor is used to identify defects, par. 78
a processor (111, Fig. 1) configured to:
receive the first information and the second information (modules process and analyze data coming from the multiple sensors which is read by the processor, par. 45),
determine a defect based on the first information and the second information (information from the sensor array is used to identify the defect, par. 78), and
adjust a printer parameter to mitigate the defect (after detecting defects the additive manufacturing process may be adjusted, par. 38).
Goldfine does not disclose an array first sensor.
Sargent discloses an additive manufacturing system where the sensor system has multiple arrays of sensors (50, 54, 36, Fig. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine to incorporate the teachings of Sargent and have multiple arrays of eddy current sensors. Doing so would have the benefit of inspecting the workpiece and improving the quality of the workpiece (par. 40, Sargent).
Claim 2. Goldfine in view of Sargent discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the second sensor comprises an eddy current sensor (multiple eddy current sensor array, par. 30, Sargent).
Claim 19. Goldfine in view of Sargent discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the material is magnetic (powder may be magnetic, par. 30) or paramagnetic, and the array second sensor is configured to adjust a magnetic field (eddy current sensor; where it is understood by the examiner that eddy current sensors generate an alternating magnetic field to induce eddy currents within a conductive target which are then sensed).
Claim 57. Goldfine in view of Sargent discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor is coupled to a recoater of the 3D printer (sensors are coupled to the recoater, par. 41, Fig. 3, Sargent).
Claim 58. Goldfine in view of Sargent discloses the sensor system of claim 1, further comprising a second sensor comprising a second sensor array (sensors 36 and 54, Fig. 3, Sargent) including an array third sensor (sensor 36, Fig. 3, Sargent) and an array fourth sensor (sensor 54, Fig. 3, Sargent), wherein the array third sensor is configured to sense third information relating to the material in the print area of the 3D printer (sensor 36 detects defects in a workpiece, par. 35, Sargent), and wherein the array fourth sensor is configured to sense fourth information relating to the material in the print area of the 3D printer (sensor 54 detects the quality of the powder, par. 38, Sargent).
Claim 59. Goldfine in view of Sargent discloses the sensor system of claim 58, wherein the second sensor is coupled to a recoater of the 3D printer (sensors 36 and 54 are coupled to the recoater, par. 41, Sargent).
Claim 60. Goldfine in view of Sargent discloses the sensor system of claim 58, wherein the array third sensor is different from the array fourth sensor (sensor 36 and 54 are separate from each other, Fig. 3, Sargent).
Claim 61. Goldfine in view of Sargent does not disclose the sensor system of claim 58, wherein determining the defect is further based on the third information and the fourth information.
However, Sargent disclose that sensor 36 is for defect detection, par. 35 and sensor 54 is for powder quality detection which is used to indicate a powder defect (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Sargent to incorporate the teachings of Sargent and use the sensor information in Sargent to determine a defect. Doing so would have the benefit of improving sensing resolution and determine the reason for the defect (par. 38, Sargent).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine in view of Sargent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varghese (US 20210060879 A1) and Hollenbeck (US 20150085080 A1).
Claim 5. Goldfine in view of Sargent discloses the sensor system of claim 1, further comprising a third sensor (additional sensor 260 which use optical sensing, par. 70),
Goldfine in view of Sargent does not disclose wherein the third sensor comprises a first camera adjacent a second camera, such that the first camera is oriented relative to the second camera to obtain a three-dimensional representation of the defect
Varghese discloses a method for repairing a void detected in an additive manufacturing process wherein a 3D optical scanner is used to create a 3D computer model of the void (abstract).
Hollenbeck discloses a 3D scanner with two cameras adjacent to each other (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Sargent to incorporate the teachings of Varghese and Hollenbeck and obtain a 3D representation of the voids defects using a 3D scanner which have two cameras adjacent to each other. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing the system be able to fix the void based on the 3D representation.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 14, 18, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine (US 20180264590 A1) in view of Yacoubian (US 11,105,754 B2).
Claim 1. Goldfine discloses a sensor system (instrument 110, Fig. 1) for a three-dimensional (3D) printer (3D printer, abstract), comprising:
a first sensor (sensor 120 may be a combination of sensing technologies, par. 48) comprising a first sensor array (sensor 120) including
wherein the array second sensor is configured to sense second information relating to the material in the print area of the 3D printer (MWM-array sensor is used to identify defects, par. 78
a processor (111, Fig. 1) configured to:
receive the first information and the second information (modules process and analyze data coming from the sensors which is read by the processor, par. 45),
determine a defect
adjust a printer parameter to mitigate the defect (after detecting defects the additive manufacturing process may be adjusted, par. 38).
Goldfine does not explicitly disclose the first sensor array comprising a first array sensor wherein the array first sensor is different from the array second sensor and configured to sense information relating to material in a print area of a 3D printer.
Goldfine discloses another embodiment where an additional sensor 260 which provide optical sensing for identification of splatter, wherein the splatter is related to a material in the print area (par. 76).
Although Goldfine does not classify the additional sensor 260 as part of the sensor 120 which can contain a combination of sensors (par. 48), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional sensor be part of the sensor 120 which feeds information back to the sense hardware. Doing so would have the benefit of simplifying the architecture since the sense hardware 114 can receive multiple channels of data (par. 47).
Goldfine does not disclose that the additional sensor which provide optical sensing is an array of sensors.
Yacoubian discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein multiple adjacent cameras are used to identify defects and inspect the additive manufacturing part (col 4 lines 47-62).
It would have It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine to incorporate the teachings of Yacoubian and have an array of cameras. Doing so would have the benefit of detecting very small defects (col 4 lines 47-62, Yacoubian).
Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not disclose that the processor uses both first and second information to determine a defect.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use both first and second information to determine a defect because the first sensor detects small defects using the cameras (col 4, lines 47-62, Yacoubian) and the second sensor uses eddy current sensors to detect defects (par.48, Goldfine).
Claim 3. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the defect comprises at least an inclusion, a subsurface void (eddy current sensor can be used to detect voids or contamination, par. 38), a region of partially sintered print material, or a region of unsintered print material.
Claim 4. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the first array sensor comprises a camera (multiple cameras, col 4 lines 47-62, Yacoubian).
Claim 6. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the second sensor is coupled with a recoater of the 3D printer (eddy current sensor is mechanically attached to the powder distributor, par. 24), such that the second sensor is configured to move with the recoater (powder distributor, e.g a rake, moves along the surface of the bed, par. 76 and 85).
Claim 8. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the first received information includes images of the defect (multiple cameras taking images, Col 4 lines 47-62, Yacoubian).
Claim 14. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian discloses the sensor system of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to instruct the 3D printer to remove the defect using at least a vacuum, a brush, a scraper, a machining tool, or a chemical agent (identification of splatter can be used in coordination with the motion of the rake, par. 76, where the rake can be used to remove the defect, par. 40).
Claim 18. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the material includes at least a powder, fused power or both a powder and fused powder (powder, abstract).
Claim 56. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian discloses the sensor system of claim 18, wherein the powder includes at least unsintered powder (powder material includes unfused powder, par. 4) or partially sintered powder.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 15, and 53-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine in view of Yacoubian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zenzinger (US 20170136574 A1).
Claim 11. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not disclose the sensor system of claim 1, wherein adjusting the printer parameter includes instructing the 3D printer to melt the material that was previously fused in the print area of the 3D printer
Zenzinger discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein detected cracks are corrected by re-melting the area (par. 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Yacoubian to incorporate the teachings of Zenzinger and re-melt the cracks. Doing so would have the benefit of ensuring the quality of the printed parts (par. 15, Zenzinger).
Claim 13. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not disclose the sensor system of claim 1, wherein adjusting the printer parameter includes suspending printing of the material.
Zenzinger discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein detected cracks are evaluated to determine if the length and width of the cracks are under a specific limit. If they are under the limit, then printing continues. If they reach or exceed the limit then the production process is suspended and the cracks are corrected by re-melting the area (par. 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Yacoubian to incorporate the teachings of Zenzinger and re-melt the cracks. Doing so would have the benefit of ensuring the quality of the printed parts (par. 15, Zenzinger).
Claim 15. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not disclose the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the received first information or the received second information meets a criterion for suspending printing of the material to perform a repair of the defect.
Zenzinger discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein detected cracks are evaluated to determine if the length and width of the cracks are under a specific limit. If they are under the limit, then printing continues. If they reach or exceed the limit then the production process is suspended and the cracks are corrected by re-melting the area (par. 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Yacoubian to incorporate the teachings of Zenzinger and re-melt the cracks. Doing so would have the benefit of ensuring the quality of the printed parts (par. 15, Zenzinger).
Claim 53. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not disclose the sensor system of claim 1, wherein mitigating the defect includes an energy beam of the 3D printer solidify the material containing the defect.
Zenzinger discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein detected cracks are corrected by re-melting the area (par. 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Yacoubian to incorporate the teachings of Zenzinger and re-melt the cracks. Doing so would have the benefit of ensuring the quality of the printed parts (par. 15, Zenzinger).
Claim 54. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not disclose the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to make a determination whether to repair or remove the defect based on the first information and the second information.
Zenzinger discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein detected cracks are evaluated to determine if the length and width of the cracks are under a specific limit. If they are under the limit, then printing continues. If they reach or exceed the limit then the production process is suspended and the cracks are corrected by re-melting the area (par. 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Yacoubian to incorporate the teachings of Zenzinger and re-melt the cracks. Doing so would have the benefit of ensuring the quality of the printed parts (par. 15, Zenzinger).
Claim 55. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not disclose the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to make a determination whether to implement immediately or at a specific time the mitigation of the defect based on the first information and the second information.
Zenzinger discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein detected cracks are evaluated to determine if the length and width of the cracks are under a specific limit. If they are under the limit, then printing continues. If they reach or exceed the limit then the production process is suspended and the cracks are corrected by re-melting the area, in other word, a determination is made to immediately mitigate the defect (par. 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Yacoubian to incorporate the teachings of Zenzinger and re-melt the cracks. Doing so would have the benefit of ensuring the quality of the printed parts (par. 15, Zenzinger).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine in view of Yacoubian as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Potter (US 20150336331 A1).
Claim 16. Goldfine does not disclose the sensor system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to instruct the 3D printer to fill a void in the material created by the repair.
Potter discloses an additive manufacturing method wherein a cracked and damaged area (Fig. 2) is fixed by first removing a portion of the object (Fig. 3, par. 49), then refilled by 3D printing (Fig. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine to incorporate the teachings of Potter. Doing so would have the benefit of repairing a damaged object (par. 45, Potter).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine in view of Yacoubian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jessen (US 20210031459 A1).
Claim 17. Goldfine in view of Yacoubian does not discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the second sensor is further configured to receive the first information, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine an action to address the defect, based on the received first information and the received second information.
Jessen discloses an additive manufacturing system wherein the size of a piece of debris is detected in order to determine the most appropriate debris removal strategy (par. 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldfine in view of Yacoubian to incorporate the teachings of Jessen and determine the size of the debris to determine the most appropriate debris removal strategy. Doing so would have the benefit of selecting the most appropriate removal strategy (par. 47, Jessen).
This combined prior art will result in a sensor system that is capable of receiving
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose printing a conduit that connects from the landing location of a debris to an external surface. Nor does it disclose using an eddy current sensor to magnetically expel a debris from the landing location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached on (571) 272-8648. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761