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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/23/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 4-6, 32-34 has/have been amended; claim(s) 35, 50, and 51 has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 58-61 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-10, 29-34, 36-39, and 60-61 are presently pending in this application.
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, 4-5, 7-10, 29, 31-32, 34, 36, and 60-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Defelice et al (EP 3238865 A1).
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;
a controller (Fig. 1 #110 instrument) configured to obtain geometric data of the build piece based on the measured 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.”).
However, Goldfine does not disclose a robotic assembly station configured to assemble a structure including the build piece based on the geometric data of the build piece.
Furthermore, Defelice in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing devices teaches a robotic assembly station (Fig. 1 #120 additive manufacturing apparatus) configured to assemble a structure including the build piece based on the geometric data of the build piece.
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 robotic assembly station as taught by Defelice for the benefit of assembling a build part while detecting both visible defects and hidden defects.
Regarding claim 3, Goldfine in view of Defelice 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 4, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), and Goldfine teaches wherein the sensor (Fig. 3 #120 sensor) is further configured to identify a defect in the portion of the print area based on the measured 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 Defelice 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 Defelice by incorporating the controller as taught by Defelice for the benefit of detecting both visible defects and hidden defects.
Regarding claim 5, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), 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 7, Goldfine in view of Defelice 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 Defelice 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 Defelice 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 Defelice 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 Defelice 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 31, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and 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 Defelice 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])
Regarding claim 32, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the sensor is further configured to identify a defect in the build piece based on the measured electromagnetic characteristic, 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 34, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Defelice teaches wherein the controller is further configured to transfer the geometric data to the robotic assembly station ([0036] lines 1-4 ---" Referring back to FIG. 1, the CNC controller 134 controls relative movement between the tool holder 106 and the build tray 122 according to the build program 130.”).
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 Defelice by incorporating the controller as taught by Defelice for the benefit of assembling a build part while detecting both visible defects and hidden defects.
Regarding claim 36, Goldfine in view of Defelice 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.”).
Regarding claim 60, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Goldfine teaches wherein the obtained geometric data comprises a digital representation of the build piece ([0120] lines 1-5 ---" In some embodiments this innovation provides real-time, in-process 3-D digital imaging of each applied layer of new material, using a combination of optical and magnetoquasistatic (MQS) sensing methods, such as the JENTEK MWM-Array.”).
Regarding claim 61, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Defelice teaches wherein the robotic assembly station assembling the structure comprises directing a robot ([0036] lines 1-4 ---" Referring back to FIG. 1, the CNC controller 134 controls relative movement between the tool holder 106 and the build tray 122 according to the build program 130.”).
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 Defelice by incorporating the directing of the robot as taught by Defelice for the benefit of assembling a build part while detecting both visible defects and hidden defects.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Defelice et al (EP 3238865) and Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771).
Regarding claim 6, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to mitigate the defect, mitigating the defect includes at least ending the printing of the build piece.
Nonetheless, Philippi in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing devices teaches wherein the controller (Fig. 1 #9 control device) is configured to mitigate the defect, 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 Defelice by incorporating the mitigating step as taught by Philippi for the benefit of consistent quality control during the manufacturing process. (Philippi [0007])
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view Defelice et al (EP 3238865) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bamberg et al (US 2014/0159266).
Regarding claim 30, Goldfine in view of Defelice 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 Defelice 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) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfine et al (US 2018/0120260) in view of Defelice et al (EP 3238865) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Philippi et al (US 2009/0152771).
Regarding claim 33, Goldfine in view of Defelice teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), and Goldfine teaches wherein the sensor is further configured to identify a defect in the build piece based on the measured 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.”).
However, Goldfine in view of Defelice does not teach wherein the controller is configured to mitigate the defect, mitigating the defect includes at least ending the printing of the build piece.
Nonetheless, Philippi in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing devices teaches wherein mitigating the defect includes mitigating a variation of a geometry 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 Defelice by incorporating the mitigating step as taught by Philippi for the benefit of consistent quality control during the manufacturing process. (Philippi [0007])
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 Defelice et al (EP 3238865) as applied to claim 36, further in view of Bamberg et al (US 2014/0159266).
Regarding claim 37, Goldfine in view of Defelice 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 Defelice 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 Defelice, 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 Defelice, 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
For claim 1:
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach “a robotic assembly station configured to assemble a structure including the build piece based on the geometric data of the build piece." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Prior art reference Defelice teaches a robotic assembly station configured to assemble a structure including the build piece based on the geometric data of the build piece. Abstract --- “A system for inspecting a part while said part is produced by additive manufacturing, includes an additive manufacturing apparatus having a build tray, the apparatus being configured to fabricate the part layer-by-layer on the tray; an automated tool holder carrying a tool configured to deposit, add or weld layer-upon-layer of material; the tool holder and tray are configured to move relative to one another along a defined path; and an inspection device attached to the tool holder and configured to scan a layer of material in situ.” The system of Defelice builds the workpiece as well as inspects the workpiece. The system of Defelice does not exclusively inspect the workpiece.
For claim 40:
Claim 40 was withdrawn. Claim 40 has not been examined in this and any previous office actions.
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 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