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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Cheverton and Blom does not remedy the deficiencies of Soshi. Cheverton describes a melt pool size, but nowhere does Cheverton disclose “a melt pool size at a given site-specific location” much less “producing a feedback signal as a function of a melt pool size at a given site-specific location” as required by Applicant’s independent claim 1. Applicants make a similar argument for Yuan.
The Office disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a given site-specific location” is simply a location where the melt pool is being monitored, and “multiple site-specific locations” means that the melt pool size can be monitored at two or more locations. Cheverton describes in par. 42-45 that the melt pool is generated along a “predetermined path,” and the optical system monitors the melt pool along the path, therefore there are multiple locations where the melt pool is being monitored.
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) 1-7 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soshi (US 20200079015 A1) in view of Cheverton (US 20150048064 A1) and Blom (US 20190001655 A1)
Claim 1. Soshi discloses a method of additive manufacturing (additive manufacturing, abstract), the method comprising:
controlling at least one of a
Soshi does not disclose receiving an input signal, the input signal being a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry;
producing a feedback signal as a function of a melt pool size at a given site- specific location of multiple site-specific locations of a part being manufactured by an additive manufacturing system; controlling at least one of a power control parameter, translation rate, or feedstock rate dynamically as a function of at least an actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal to enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce a part that, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry.
Cheverton discloses a method of additive manufacturing (additive manufacturing, abstract), the method comprising:
receiving an input signal (calibration model 52, par. 43), the input signal being a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry; (calibration model 52 of the melt pool size wherein the melt pool has a geometry, par. 43);
producing a feedback signal as a function of a melt pool size at a given site- specific location of multiple site-specific locations of a part being manufactured by an additive manufacturing system (system monitors the melt pool size and adjusts the build parameters based on a comparison of the melt pool size with a calibration model, par. 47);
controlling at least one of a power control parameter of a laser-equipped print head, translation rate parameter of a drive subsystem, or feedstock rate parameter of a material feed subsystem dynamically (system monitors the melt pool size and adjusts the build parameters during operation, wherein the build parameters can be a power output or vector scanning speed, claim 7) as a function of at least an actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal (a correction factor is generated based on the difference between the measured values at the melt pool and compares them to the calibration model, par. 43) to enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce a part that, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry (the correction factor allows the system to fabricate the component with improved component dimensions and resolution, par. 43; wherein the melted pool can be considered a part that matches the calibration model).
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 Soshi to incorporate the teachings of Cheverton and compare the detected melt pool with a calibration model. Doing so would have improved the accuracy and quality of the build (par. 4-5, Cheverton).
Soshi in view of Cheverton does not disclose said composite geometry that is computed as a function of the primary geometry and a secondary geometry and producing a part that, in a manufactured state, matches the composite geometry.
Blom discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein the calibration model used to compare to the detected melt pool can include the melt pool size, depth, area, and volume (par. 49).
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 Soshi in view of Cheverton to incorporate the teachings of Blom and include the melt pool depth and area. Doing so would have improved the quality of overhanging and downward facing surfaces by accounting for melt pool depth (par. 3, Blom).
Additionally, the combined prior art discloses enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce a part that, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry. The limitation “to produce a part that…matches the composite geometry” is NOT interpreted as limiting the composite geometry/input signal to being the 3D model of the final printed part. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “to produce a part” includes the current melt pool that is being formed to match the calibrated melt pool disclosed by Cheverton and Blom.
Claim 2. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the method of Claim 1 further comprising:
sensing a temperature of the part at a proximal location to a site-specific location, at a distal location from the site-specific location, or a combination thereof (optical system 12 monitors the melt pool to measure the temperature, par. 45); and
controlling at least one of the power control parameter, translation rate parameter, or feedstock rate parameter dynamically further as a function of the temperature sensed (build parameters such as power are adjusted based on the temperature of the melt pool, par. 48).
Claim 3. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein producing the feedback signal includes capturing an image of the melt pool and extracting from the image a measure of at least one of size or shape of the melt pool (optical sensors used to measure the size of the melt pool may be cameras, par. 27 and 42).
Claims 5 and 14. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the method of Claim 1 further comprising applying non-linear control at the given site- specific location to produce a custom surface profile at the given site-specific location (toolpaths are generated across the geometry of the layer, par. 23; where it is understood that the toolpaths can move in two dimensions using the 2D galvanometers, par. 22-23; the broadest reasonable interpretation of non-linear control to produce a custom surface profile includes a laser path that moves in 2D), the non-linear control applied based upon values derived from machine instructions including at least one of a lookup table, a G-code representation, a voxel representation, list instructions (executable instructions, Blom, par. 30), or a command-line interface.
Claims 4 and 13. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the method of Claim 1 further comprising regulating the translation rate parameter at a constant level (movement speed can be constant, par. 5) while controlling at least one of the power control parameter or the feedstock rate parameter during translation of the print head (powder supply rate is actively adjusted during the translation in order to maintain a constant rate of supply, par. 48-49).
Claims 6 and 15. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the method of Claim 1 further comprising controlling the translation rate parameter to cause the drive subsystem to translate the print head with respect to the part, to translate the part with respect to the print head (feed apparatus moves the machining table relative to the laser head, par. 14), or to translate both the print head and the part with respect to a common reference point or relative to each other.
Claims 7 and 16. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the method of Claim 1 further comprising controlling the feedstock rate parameter to cause the material feed subsystem to direct feedstock material to the part at the site- specific locations along a first and a second dimension (feed apparatus moves the machining table relative to the laser head and nozzle in a three-dimensional space), at a given layer defined along a third dimension (additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object, par. 46; where it is understood by the examiner that this involves multiple layers of powder being melted along a vertical direction or third dimension in order to form a three-dimensional printed part).
Claim 9. Soshi discloses an additive manufacturing system comprising:
a laser-equipped print head (laser head 2, Fig. 1) configured to direct energy to a print head part, the energy of sufficient power to melt a material at site-specific locations of the part (laser beam focuses on the powder and melts it, par. 30), the
a drive subsystem (feed apparatus, par. 31) configured to cause a translation between the print head and the part (feed apparatus moves the machining table relative to the nozzle and laser head, par. 31), the translation adjustable according to a translation rate parameter (movement speed can be changed, par. 14);
a material feed subsystem (powder supply device 4, Fig. 1) configured to direct feedstock material to the part at the site-specific locations to be irradiated by the directed energy of the laser-equipped print head (powder supply device supplies powder towards a laser beam concentration spot where the powder is melted, par. 30), the feedstock material output adjustable according to a feedstock rate parameter (the powder supply rate can be adjusted, par. 11); and
Soshi does not disclose a closed-loop feedback control subsystem including a comparison unit, controller (), and melt pool sensor, the comparison unit configured
(i) to receive (a) an input signal that is a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry that the part is to match substantially in a manufactured state at least at multiple site-specific locations and (b) a feedback signal provided by the melt pool sensor that is a function of size or shape of a melt pool at a given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations and
(ii) to output an actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal, the controller configured to control at least one of the power control parameter, translation rate parameter, or feedstock rate parameter dynamically as a function of the actuating error signal to enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce the part such that the part, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry.
Cheverton discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein a closed-loop feedback control subsystem (computing device 46, par. 32) including a comparison unit (comparison module, par.45), controller (processors, par. 33), and melt pool sensor (optical sensor 26), the comparison unit configured
(i) to receive (a) an input signal that is a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry that the part is to match substantially in a manufactured state
(ii) to output an actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal (a correction factor is generated based on the difference between the measured values at the build vector and compares them to the calibration model, par. 43), the controller configured to control at least one of the power control parameter, translation rate parameter, or feedstock rate parameter dynamically as a function of the actuating error signal (system monitors the melt pool size and adjusts the build parameters during operation, wherein the build parameters can be a power output or vector scanning speed, claim 7) to enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce the part such that the part, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry (the correction factor allows the system to fabricate the component with improved component dimensions and resolution, par. 43; where it is understood that this method allows the melt pool to match the calibration model at multiple locations in producing the part).
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 Soshi to incorporate the teachings of Cheverton and compare the detected melt pool with a calibration model. Doing so would have improved the accuracy and quality of the build (par. 4-5, Cheverton).
Soshi in view of Cheverton does not disclose said input signal is a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry that the part is to match substantially in a manufactured state at least at multiple site-specific locations.
Blom discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein the calibration model used to compare to the detected melt pool can include the melt pool size, depth, area, and volume (par. 49). Additionally, the model can be a CAD model of the part to be printed (par. 95; where it is understood that the model’s geometries or site-specific features)
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 Soshi in view of Cheverton to incorporate the teachings of Blom and include the melt pool depth and area. Doing so would have improved the quality of overhanging and downward facing surfaces by accounting for melt pool depth (par. 3, Blom).
Additionally, the combined prior art discloses enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce the part such that the part, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry. The limitation “to produce the part [i.e. print head part] that…matches the composite geometry” is NOT interpreted as limiting the composite geometry/input signal to being the 3D model of the final printed part. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a print head part” includes the current melt pool that is being formed to match the calibrated melt pool disclosed by Cheverton and Blom.
Claim 10. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the system of Claim 9 further comprising at least one additional sensor (optical sensor 32, Fig. 1) configured
(i) to sense a temperature of the part at a proximal location to a site-specific location, at a distal location from the site-specific location (optical sensor 32 can be used to monitor the temperature near the melt pool and the body of the printed object, par. 28 and 42), or at a combination thereof, and
(ii) to provide a respective sensor signal according to a temperature sensed by the at least one additional sensor; and wherein the controller is further configured (i) to receive the respective sensor signal (optical sensor 32 sends the measured values to the computing device 46, par. 42) and
(ii) to control at least one of the power control parameter, translation rate parameter, or feedstock rate parameter dynamically further as a function of the temperature sensed (computing device receives the measured values from the sensors and compares them to the calibration model; then the computing device modifies the build vectors, which include power output and scanning speed, to improve the physical properties of the printed part, par. 45 and claim 7).
Claim 11. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the system of Claim 9 wherein the melt pool sensor includes a thermal or visible-light camera or a combination thereof (optical sensors used to measure the size of the melt pool may be cameras or pyrometers, par. 27 and 42).
Claim 12. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the system of Claim 9 wherein the secondary geometry is one of multiple secondary geometries (the calibration model used to compare to the detected melt pool can include the melt pool size, depth, area, and volume, par. 49, Blom).
Claim 17. Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom discloses the system of Claim 9 wherein the controller resides between an output node of the comparison unit and an input node of at least one of the laser power module, the drive subsystem, or the material feed subsystem (the computing device 46 uses the comparison module and receives the difference value (i.e. output node) and then generate and send corrected build parameters files 58 to the subsystems (i.e. input node), par. 43)
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soshi in view of Yuan (US 20180193954 A1) and Cheverton.
Claim 1. Soshi discloses a method of additive manufacturing (additive manufacturing, abstract), the method comprising:
controlling at least one of a
Soshi does not disclose receiving an input signal, the input signal being a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry;
producing a feedback signal as a function of a melt pool size at a given site- specific location of multiple site-specific locations of a part being manufactured by an additive manufacturing system; controlling at least one of a power control parameter, translation rate, or feedstock rate dynamically as a function of at least an actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal to enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce a part that, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry.
Yuan discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein receiving an input signal (computing device receives component model data which includes geometric data of the desired component, par. 37), the input signal being a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry (it is understood by the examiner that CAD models contain 3D data which involve different geometries for different sections of the component; additionally, the geometric data contains sliced two-dimensional layers of the cross-section, wherein each layer can be considered a separate geometry, par. 29);
producing a feedback signal as a function of a melt pool size at a given site- specific location of multiple site-specific locations of a part being manufactured by an additive manufacturing system (thermal measurements are taken of the melt pool characteristics which can contain melt pool width, par. 46 and 52);
controlling at least one of a power control parameter (power of the energy source is modified based on comparing the melt pool characteristics with the target melt pool characteristics, par. 50-52), translation rate, or feedstock rate dynamically as a function of at least an
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 Soshi to incorporate the teachings of Yuan and compare the component thermal data with the measured data. Doing so would have improved the accuracy of the additive manufacturing device (par. 2, Yuan).
Soshi in view of Yuan does not explicitly disclose the actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal.
Cheverton discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein system monitors the melt pool size and adjusts the build parameters based on a comparison of the melt pool size with a calibration model (par. 47). The comparison generates a correction factor to adjust the build parameters (par. 43).
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 Soshi to incorporate the teachings of Yuan and Cheverton and form a correction factor from comparing the two data set. Doing so would have allowed the system to calibrate the melt pool and improve accuracy (par. 7-8, Cheverton).
Claim 9. Soshi discloses an additive manufacturing system comprising:
a laser-equipped print head (laser head 2, Fig. 1) configured to direct energy to a print head part, the energy of sufficient power to melt a material at site-specific locations of the part (laser beam focuses on the powder and melts it, par. 30), the
a drive subsystem (feed apparatus, par. 31) configured to cause a translation between the print head and the part (feed apparatus moves the machining table relative to the nozzle and laser head, par. 31), the translation adjustable according to a translation rate parameter (movement speed can be changed, par. 14);
a material feed subsystem (powder supply device 4, Fig. 1) configured to direct feedstock material to the part at the site-specific locations to be irradiated by the directed energy of the laser-equipped print head (powder supply device supplies powder towards a laser beam concentration spot where the powder is melted, par. 30), the feedstock material output adjustable according to a feedstock rate parameter (the powder supply rate can be adjusted, par. 11); and
Soshi does not disclose a closed-loop feedback control subsystem including a comparison unit, controller (), and melt pool sensor, the comparison unit configured
(i) to receive (a) an input signal that is a representation of a composite geometry of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry that the part is to match substantially in a manufactured state at least at multiple site-specific locations and (b) a feedback signal provided by the melt pool sensor that is a function of size or shape of a melt pool at a given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations and
(ii) to output an actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal, the controller configured to control at least one of the power control parameter, translation rate parameter, or feedstock rate parameter dynamically as a function of the actuating error signal to enable the additive manufacturing system to produce a customized melt pool size or shape for the given site-specific location of the multiple site-specific locations to produce the part such that the part, in a manufactured state, substantially matches the composite geometry.
Yuan discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein receiving an input signal (computing device receives component model data which includes geometric data of the desired component, par. 37), which is a representation of a composite geometry that is computed as a function of a primary geometry and a secondary geometry (it is understood by the examiner that CAD models contain 3D data which involve different geometries for different sections of the component; additionally, the geometric data contains sliced two-dimensional layers of the cross-section, wherein each layer can be considered a separate geometry, par. 29);
producing a feedback signal as a function of a melt pool size at a given site- specific location of multiple site-specific locations of a part being manufactured by an additive manufacturing system (thermal measurements are taken of the melt pool characteristics which can contain melt pool width, par. 46 and 52);
controlling at least one of a power control parameter (power of the energy source is modified based on comparing the melt pool characteristics with the target melt pool characteristics, par. 50-52), translation rate, or feedstock rate dynamically as a function of at least an
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 Soshi to incorporate the teachings of Yuan and compare the component thermal data with the measured data. Doing so would have improved the accuracy of the additive manufacturing device (par. 2, Yuan).
Soshi in view of Yuan does not explicitly disclose the actuating error signal that represents a difference between the input signal and the feedback signal.
Cheverton discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein system monitors the melt pool size and adjusts the build parameters based on a comparison of the melt pool size with a calibration model (par. 47). The comparison generates a correction factor to adjust the build parameters (par. 43).
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 Soshi to incorporate the teachings of Yuan and Cheverton and form a correction factor from comparing the two data set. Doing so would have allowed the system to calibrate the melt pool and improve accuracy (par. 7-8, Cheverton).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soshi in view of Yuan and Cheverton as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Anand (US 20170372480 A1).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Anand (US 20170372480 A1).
Claim 8. Soshi in view of Yuan and Cheverton, and Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom does not disclose the method of Claim 1 further comprising computing the composite geometry based on an operation involving a first matrix describing the primary geometry and a second matrix describing the secondary geometry.
Anand discloses a method for pre-processing and post-processing in additive manufacturing wherein the CAD model is processed with an image processing based slicer to improve speed and reduce errors (par. 139) wherein an operation is performed on the matrices of the 3D model by marking each accessible support pixels on the 3D matrix for multiple matrices (par. 179-180).
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 Soshi in view of Yuan and Cheverton, and Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom to incorporate the teachings of Anand and mark each accessible support pixels on the 3D matrix for multiple matrices. Doing so would have the benefit of identify the support structures that can be accessed from the outside by a tool (par. 174, Anand)
Claim 18. Soshi in view of Yuan and Cheverton, and Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom does not disclose the system of Claim 9 further comprising a composite geometry calculation module configured to calculate the composite geometry based on an operation involving a first matrix describing the primary geometry and a second matrix describing the secondary geometry and to output the composite geometry as a representation thereof to the comparison unit.
Anand discloses an method for pre-processing and post-processing in additive manufacturing wherein the CAD model is processed with an image processing based slicer to improve speed and reduce errors (par. 139) wherein an operation is performed on the matrices of the 3D model by marking each accessible support pixels on the 3D matrix for multiple matrices (par. 179-180).
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 Soshi in view of Yuan and Cheverton, and Soshi in view of Cheverton and Blom to incorporate the teachings of Anand and mark each accessible support pixels on the 3D matrix for multiple matrices. Doing so would have the benefit of identify the support structures that can be accessed from the outside by a tool (par. 174, Anand).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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
Prosecution Insights