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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/09/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2025, 09/10/2025, and 11/10/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 29, 32-34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771) and Ladewig et al (US 2019/0232371).
Regarding claim 1, Goldfine discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a depositor (Fig.3 #305 roller) configured to deposit a layer of metal in a print area of a 3-D printer;
an energy beam source (Fig. 3 #301 laser and #303 scanner system) configured to supply an energy beam in order to selectively melt the metal to form a portion of a build piece;
a sensor (Fig. 3 #120 sensor) configured: to move relative to a surface of the print area, to measure an electromagnetic characteristic of a portion of the print area, and to identify a defect in the portion of the print area based on the measured electromagnetic characteristic ([0096] lines 1-4 ---" Sensor 120 may be an eddy-current sensor, a dielectrometry sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or utilize any other suitable sensing technology or combination of sensing technologies.”).
However, Goldfine does not disclose a controller configured to mitigate the defect at least by modifying a printer parameter in a future layer; wherein mitigating the defect includes the energy beam fusing the portion of the print area containing the defect.
Nonetheless, Philippi in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing devices teaches a controller (Fig. 1 #9 control device) configured to mitigate the defect at least by modifying a printer parameter in a future layer ([0019] lines 27-32 ---"If defects or irregularities are detected, an additional layering step may be performed by the layering device while compensating these irregularities, or instead, the layer parameters for the following layers may be adapted in a manner that the irregularities of the whole formed object have no or substantially no effect at all.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine by incorporating the controller as taught by Philippi for the benefit of consistent quality control during the manufacturing process. (Philippi [0007])
Furthermore, Ludewig in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing devices teaches wherein mitigating the defect includes the energy beam fusing the portion of the print area containing the defect ([0038] lines 1-6 ---" If an actual defect is detected in already solidified component 26 a few (1-10) layers beneath the current build plane, then, as intermediate correction step e), the site in question may be remelted again by radiation source 18 or using an additional repair radiation source (not shown) with the aid of adapted parameters.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine by incorporating the defect correction with the energy beam as taught by Ludewig for the benefit of better process control and a reduction of process disturbances.
Regarding claim 3, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the portion of the print area (Fig. 3 #311 powder bed) includes the build piece (Fig. 3 #315 AM component), and the electromagnetic characteristic is an electromagnetic characteristic of the build piece ([0063] ---”In some embodiments in addition to monitor the process the sensor response is used to measure the quality of the processed material, both during the processing and/or between processing steps.”).
Regarding claim 5, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the defect includes at least an inclusion, a void, unfused powder, partially-fused powder, a crack, or a contamination ([0089] lines 12-21 ---"Instrument 110 is configured to provide excitation signals 121 to sensor 120 and measure the resulting response signals 123 of sensor 120. Response signals 123 may be measured and processed to estimate properties of interest, such as electromagnetic properties (e.g., conductivity, permeability, and permittivity), geometric properties (e.g., thickness, sensor lift-off), material condition (e.g., fault/no fault, crack size, corrosion depth, stress level, temperature), or any other suitable property or combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 6, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Philippi teaches wherein mitigating the defect includes at least ending the printing of the build piece ([0019] lines 27-32 ---"If defects or irregularities are detected, an additional layering step may be performed by the layering device while compensating these irregularities, or instead, the layer parameters for the following layers may be adapted in a manner that the irregularities of the whole formed object have no or substantially no effect at all.” When the defect is detected, the build process ends and the correcting steps begin.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig by incorporating the mitigating step as taught by Philippi for the benefit of consistent quality control during the manufacturing process. (Philippi [0007])
Regarding claim 7, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the metal includes a metal powder, the portion of the print area (Fig. 3 #311 powder bed) includes a portion of the metal powder ([0116] lines 3-4 ---"Relevant powder based processes include Direct Metal Laser Sintering.” This passage suggests that the powder in the Fig. 3 #311 powder bed is metal powder.), and the electromagnetic characteristic includes an electromagnetic characteristic of the metal powder ([0089] lines 12-21 ---"Instrument 110 is configured to provide excitation signals 121 to sensor 120 and measure the resulting response signals 123 of sensor 120. Response signals 123 may be measured and processed to estimate properties of interest, such as electromagnetic properties (e.g., conductivity, permeability, and permittivity), geometric properties (e.g., thickness, sensor lift-off), material condition (e.g., fault/no fault, crack size, corrosion depth, stress level, temperature), or any other suitable property or combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 8, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), and Goldfine teaches wherein the controller (Fig. 1 #110 instrument) is further configured to detect an anomaly in the portion of the metal powder based on the electromagnetic characteristic ([0089] lines 12-21 ---"Instrument 110 is configured to provide excitation signals 121 to sensor 120 and measure the resulting response signals 123 of sensor 120. Response signals 123 may be measured and processed to estimate properties of interest, such as electromagnetic properties (e.g., conductivity, permeability, and permittivity), geometric properties (e.g., thickness, sensor lift-off), material condition (e.g., fault/no fault, crack size, corrosion depth, stress level, temperature), or any other suitable property or combination thereof.”), and modify an operation of the 3-D printer based on the detection of the anomaly ([0111] ---"In some embodiments method 200 include step 209, wherein the property of the test object is used to control a process. For example, the property measurement may be fed back into a control circuit that controls a process. In one embodiment the property is used to control an AM process.”).
Regarding claim 9, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Goldfine teaches wherein the anomaly includes at least a contamination, a powder density, a quality of powder spread, or a variation in thickness of a powder layer ([0109] lines 5-9 ---" Specific properties include, for example and not limitation, electrical conductivity, magnetic permeability, electrical permittivity, layer thickness, stress, temperature, damage, age, health, density, viscosity, cure state, embrittlement, wetness, and contamination.”).
Regarding claim 10, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Goldfine teaches wherein modifying the operation of the 3-D printer includes at least removing a contaminant from the metal powder, removing at least some of the metal powder, replacing a current batch of the metal powder in the 3-D printer, re- depositing the metal powder, adjusting printer parameters ([0111] ---"In some embodiments method 200 include step 209, wherein the property of the test object is used to control a process. For example, the property measurement may be fed back into a control circuit that controls a process. In one embodiment the property is used to control an AM process.”), or ending printing of the build piece.
Regarding claim 29, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the sensor (Fig. 3 #120 sensor) comprises an eddy current sensor ([0096] lines 1-4 ---" Sensor 120 may be an eddy-current sensor, a dielectrometry sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or utilize any other suitable sensing technology or combination of sensing technologies.”).
Regarding claim 32, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the defect includes a variation of a geometry of the build piece ([0089] lines 12-21 ---"Instrument 110 is configured to provide excitation signals 121 to sensor 120 and measure the resulting response signals 123 of sensor 120. Response signals 123 may be measured and processed to estimate properties of interest, such as electromagnetic properties (e.g., conductivity, permeability, and permittivity), geometric properties (e.g., thickness, sensor lift-off), material condition (e.g., fault/no fault, crack size, corrosion depth, stress level, temperature), or any other suitable property or combination thereof.”),
and wherein identifying the defect includes detecting an edge of the build piece below a surface of at least the build piece([0034] ---" In some embodiments the sensor measures the geometry of the part using the sensor response to determine the location of the edges of the part.”).
Regarding claim 33, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein mitigating the defect includes mitigating a variation of a geometry of the build piece ([0089] lines 12-21 ---"Instrument 110 is configured to provide excitation signals 121 to sensor 120 and measure the resulting response signals 123 of sensor 120. Response signals 123 may be measured and processed to estimate properties of interest, such as electromagnetic properties (e.g., conductivity, permeability, and permittivity), geometric properties (e.g., thickness, sensor lift-off), material condition (e.g., fault/no fault, crack size, corrosion depth, stress level, temperature), or any other suitable property or combination thereof.”) ([0111] ---"In some embodiments method 200 include step 209, wherein the property of the test object is used to control a process. For example, the property measurement may be fed back into a control circuit that controls a process. In one embodiment the property is used to control an AM process.”).
Regarding claim 34, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the controller is further configured to obtain geometric data of the build piece based on the electromagnetic characteristic ([0089] lines 12-21 ---"Instrument 110 is configured to provide excitation signals 121 to sensor 120 and measure the resulting response signals 123 of sensor 120. Response signals 123 may be measured and processed to estimate properties of interest, such as electromagnetic properties (e.g., conductivity, permeability, and permittivity), geometric properties (e.g., thickness, sensor lift-off), material condition (e.g., fault/no fault, crack size, corrosion depth, stress level, temperature), or any other suitable property or combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 36, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the sensor (Fig. 3 #120 sensor) comprises a first sensor array ([0095] lines 6-9 ---" Sense hardware 114 may measure sensor transimpedance for one or more excitation signals at on one or more sense elements of sensor 120.”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771) and Ladewig et al (US 2019/0232371) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Defelice et al (EP 3238865).
Regarding claim 4, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to receive sensor data and the measured electromagnetic characteristic and determine, based on the sensor data and the measured electromagnetic characteristic, location of the defect in the build piece.
Nonetheless, Defelice in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing devices teaches wherein the controller is further configured to receive sensor data and the measured electromagnetic characteristic and determine, based on the sensor data and the measured electromagnetic characteristic, location of the defect in the build piece ([0016] lines 23-31 ---" In some cases, the inspection controller uses an adaptive control system or an intelligent control system which learns from the results (e.g., number of defects, location of defects within the AM part) of each inspection run and accordingly adapts the AM build process and/or the inspection process to eliminate, or at least reduce the likelihood of other defects being made during subsequent depositions/additions/welding of layers.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig by incorporating the controller as taught by Defelice for the benefit of detecting both visible defects and hidden defects..
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771) and Ladewig et al (US 2019/0232371) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Defelice et al (EP 3238865).
Regarding claim 31, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the electromagnetic characteristic includes an impedance.
Nonetheless, Defelice teaches wherein the electromagnetic characteristic includes an impedance ([0048] lines 15-21 ---" Thereafter, when the coil is placed close to an electrically conductive material (e.g., layer of material of the part 102) in stage b, an eddy current is induced in the material. If a flow in the conductive material disturbs the eddy current circulation, the magnetic coupling with the probe is changed and a defect signal can be ready by measuring the coil impedance variation, as shown in stage c of FIG. 5.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig by incorporating the electromagnetic characteristic as taught by Defelice for the benefit of reducing the amount of material that needs to be inspected and enables immediate (real-time, in-situ) correction of manufacturing defects. (Defelice [0017])
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771) and Ladewig et al (US 2019/0232371) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bamberg et al (US 2014/0159266).
Regarding claim 30, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the sensor is coupled to the depositor.
Nonetheless, Bamberg in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing devices teaches wherein the sensor is coupled to the depositor ([0040] lines 1-4 ---"For applying the powder 4 in the method of the doctor blade 10, the eddy-current array 30 is guided with it by being connected to the back of doctor blade 10, and this generates an eddy field 38 having a penetration depth z.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig by incorporating the configuration of the blade and the sensor as taught by Bamberg for the benefit of not requiring a complicated sensor calibration. (Bamberg [0010])
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771) and Ladewig et al (US 2019/0232371) as applied to claim 34, further in view of Defelice et al (EP 3238865).
Regarding claim 35, Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 34), but does not teach further comprising a robotic assembly station configured to assemble the build piece based on the geometric data.
Nonetheless, Defelice teaches further comprising a robotic assembly station (Fig. 1 #110 tool placement mechanism) configured to assemble the build piece based on the geometric data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig by incorporating the configuration of the robotic assembly station as taught by Defelice for the benefit of relative movement between the build tray and the tool holder.
Claim(s) 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771) and Ladewig et al (US 2019/0232371) as applied to claim 36, further in view of Bamberg et al (US 2014/0159266).
Regarding claim 37, Goldfine in view of Philippi teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the first sensor array is configured to be coupled to a first side of the depositor.
Nonetheless, Bamberg teaches wherein the first sensor array is configured to be coupled to a first side of the depositor ([0040] lines 1-4 ---"For applying the powder 4 in the method of the doctor blade 10, the eddy-current array 30 is guided with it by being connected to the back of doctor blade 10, and this generates an eddy field 38 having a penetration depth z.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goldfine in view of Philippi and Ladewig by incorporating the configuration of the blade and the sensor as taught by Bamberg for the benefit of testing the entire component step by step completely in a highly resolved manner. (Bamberg Abstract)
Regarding claim 38, Goldfine in view of Philippi, Ladewig, and Bamberg teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 37), and Goldfine teaches wherein the sensor further comprises a second sensor array ([0095] lines 6-9 ---" Sense hardware 114 may measure sensor transimpedance for one or more excitation signals at on one or more sense elements of sensor 120.”).
Regarding claim 39, Goldfine in view of Philippi, Ladewig, and Bamberg teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 38), and Goldfine teaches wherein the second sensor array ([0095] lines 6-9 ---" Sense hardware 114 may measure sensor transimpedance for one or more excitation signals at on one or more sense elements of sensor 120.”) is configured to be coupled to a second side of the depositor (Applicant claims no special configuration which would differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 08/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 29-40 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ladewig et al (US 2019/0232371).
For claim 1:
Applicant argues that Goldfine and Philippi do not teach mitigating a defect includes an energy beam fusing a portion of a print area containing the defect. Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art reference Ladewig teaches mitigating a defect includes an energy beam fusing a portion of a print area containing the defect. See the rejection of claim 1.
For claim 35:
Applicant argues that Defelice does not disclose “a robotic assembly station configured to assemble the build piece based on the geometric data.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant does not claim any specific structures for “a robotic assembly station.” Examiner interpets the robotic assembly station under BRI and relies on Defelice to teach at least a portion of “a robotic assembly station.”
For claim 40:
Claim 40 has been amended to include the limitation “wherein mitigating the defect includes fusing the portion of the area containing the defect.”
However, claim 40 has been withdrawn from prosecution and has not been examined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights