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
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 21-23 are new. The rejection under 35 USC 112a is revised in view of the amendment. The rejection under 35 USC 112b is maintained. The rejection of Claims 1-9 and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn. The prior art rejections have been revised in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search for the stitch boundary and stitch length, the search associated with a number of iterations until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length; and initiate the additive manufacturing based on the second set of stitch coordinates, distributing a first workload of the first laser over a first build area on a first side of the stitch boundary, evenly, with a second workload of the second laser over a second build area on a second side of the stitch boundary, wherein the first workload of the first laser is not more than the second workload of the second laser, and the second workload of the second laser is not more thanthe first workload of the first laser, and further wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing; and increase at least one of: a build speed, a build throughput, and a build efficiency of the additive manufacturing relative to a default setting.” Paragraphs [0035-36] provide pseudocode for general functions of “EvaluateSolution(new Stitch)” and “if solution value does not improve over (elapsedTime = timeRandomRestart) or with respect to number of iterations, then reinitialize initialStitch and start over.” “EvaluateSolution()” “evaluates a given stitch line with respect to load balancing, stitch length, avoidance of keep-out zones etc.” There are tradeoffs involved in this “EvaluateSolution()” [one iteration of the search will have better stitch length, another with have less stitching in the keep-out zone] but Applicant does not detail how these tradeoffs are evaluated or how the tradeoff would be incorporated into the evaluation. As noted in [0038], “In some examples, a user can select a trade-off between load balancing and reducing/minimizing stitch length (e.g., based on user preferences, anticipated effects to the final build, etc.).” Accordingly, the content of Evaluate Solution does not specify what the tradeoff would be, the relative advantage of better load balancing or reducing/minimizing stitch length, or even how that would be set up. In short, Applicant has not disclosed what Applicant proposes to do or conceived of. Accordingly, the specification does not provide an adequate written description to support the recited “search.” While the claims now recite even load balancing, presumably at the expense of stitch length and/or portion in the keep-out zone, the trade-off between reduction in the keep-out zone and stitch length is not recited.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-23 also rejected as depending from claims 1, 10, or 19.
Additionally, Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “a first stitch length and a second stitch length.” This phrasing does not appear in Applicant’s disclosure, and it is not clear what the terms refer to. It is believed that “a first stitch length” refers to the length of the boundary of the region covered by the first laser and “a second stitch length” refers to the length of the boundary of the region covered by the second laser. For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted based on this belief. However, this relationship is not recited in the claim nor explained in the specification. All uses of term “stitch” in the specification use the term stitch to refer to the boundary between the regions that the first laser and the second laser irradiate. This absence of support constitutes a lack of a sufficient written description supporting claims 1, 10, and 19. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-23 rejected as depending from claim 1, 10, or 19.
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 1-23 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “increase at least one of: a build speed, a build throughput, and a build efficiency of the additive manufacturing relative to a default setting.” The claims do not provide any indication of what the default setting refers to. Applicant cites to various paragraphs for support, none of which describe a default setting. Based on context, it is believed that by “default setting” Applicant is possibly referring to the build speed, throughput, or efficiency of additively manufacturing following the first set of stitch coordinates. This belief is based on Applicant’s recitation of a first set of stitch coordinates, followed by transforming the first set of stitch coordinates to the second set of stitch coordinates following the instructions recited for the processor circuitry. However, this is not the plain language of the claim, which refers to “a default setting” without specifying what that is, which could be a single laser system operating with no stitching. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-23 rejected as depending from claim 1, 10, or 19.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “a first stitch length and a second stitch length.” This phrasing does not appear in Applicant’s disclosure, and it is not clear what the terms refer to. It is believed that “a first stitch length” refers to the length of the boundary of the region covered by the first laser and “a second stitch length” refers to the length of the boundary of the region covered by the second laser. For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted based on this belief.
However, this relationship is not recited in the claim nor explained in the specification. It is further unclear if this is a proper use of the term “stitch” as all references in the specification use the term stitch to refer to the boundary between the regions that the first laser and the second laser irradiate.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-23 rejected as depending from claim 1, 10, or 19.
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 107498052) in view of Crear (US 2019/054530) and Versluys (US 2017/0197249), and further optionally in view of Hull (US 2008/0169586).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising a first laser (p. 1); a second laser (multi-laser, p. 1); and instructions to: identify at least one keep-out zone of an object build area in which stitching is to be reduced during additive manufacturing (small cross-sectional structure shown between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2) using the first laser and the second laser (p. 1); determine a first set of stitch coordinates corresponding to a stitching region of the object (coordinates of dividing line 6, p. 5, Fig. 2); the stitching region including a stitch boundary of the stitching region (boundary of dividing line 6, p. 5, Fig. 2), the stitch boundary formed using a first stitch length and a second stitch length (applying the interpretation that first stitch and second stitch refer to the length of the boundary at the edge of the region irradiated by the first laser and the region irradiated by the second laser, respectively, the stitch from the first laser and the stitch from second laser each inherently have a length), the stitch boundary bordering the at least one keep-out zone (coordinates of dividing line 6 borders region between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2); generate a second set of stitch coordinates reducing stitching in the at least one keep-out zone of the object build area (final optimization line 5, p. 5, Fig. 2); initiate the additive manufacturing based on the second set of stitch coordinates (finally, path planning and filling are performed, p. 5), distributing a first workload of the first laser over a first build area on a first side of the stitch boundary, evenly, with a second workload of the second laser over a second build area on a second side of the stitch boundary (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), wherein the first workload of the first laser is not more than the second workload of the second laser (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), and the second workload of the second laser is not more than the first workload of the first laser (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), and further wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing (repeated discussion of equalizing the processing time of the two lasers implies operating in unison so that time is saved); and increase at least one of: a build speed, a build throughput, and a build efficiency of the additive manufacturing relative to a default setting (improved build efficiency, “The partition line and the contour loop are Boolean-computed, thereby avoiding the optimal splitting line that passes through the thin-walled or column-shaped support, and at the same time avoiding the problem of low efficiency caused by the frequent start-stops caused by scanning the small area of the galvanometer mirror”, p. 5; “ensure that the work load of each laser galvanometric system is balanced and optimal efficiency is achieved”, p. 2).
Zhang teaches instructions for an apparatus substantially as claimed. Zhang is silent about how the method is followed, though it teaches numerous calculations performed iteratively (see i+1 language on p. 2). Zhang does not disclose that the second set of stitch coordinates determined by using a random coordinate modification algorithm, the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search for the stitch boundary and stitch length, the search associated with a number of iterations until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length. While Zhang implies operating the lasers in unison to maximize efficiency by equalizing the processing time for each laser in a multi-laser system, this is not explicit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches implementing modeling and modification with a computerized system, ([0005]) and the second set of stitch coordinates determined using a random coordinate modification algorithm ([0067]; reducing width of stitching region 264 from W1 to W2, [0065], [0003]). Crear teaches wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing (“using two or more irradiation devices may be advantageous to create larger objects faster… each two-dimensional image of each layer includes assignments for different irradiation devices to form different regions of the object”, [0007]; faster creation only makes sense with parallel operation, sequential operation would not reduce the creation time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to implement the method on a computer (at least one memory to store instructions and processor circuitry to execute instructions) because Zhang is silent as to how to implement the method and [0005] of Crear teaches implementing instructions to modify stitch coordinates ([0008]) with a computer. It further would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the randomization taught in [0067] of Crear and the reduction in stitching region width in [0065] of Crear because [0065] of Crear teaches reducing stitch region width improves build strategy parameters and [0066-67] of Crear teaches that randomization helps to improve strength by spreading out the stitch so it is not a sharp boundary through the entire structure.
Zhang in view of Crear teaches instructions for an apparatus substantially as claimed. Zhang in view of Crear does not specify the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search associated with a number of iterations [until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length].
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying boundaries for areas solidified by a laser for additive manufacturing, ([0004]), Versluys teaches the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search for the stitch boundary and stitch length (generating a random walk pathway for the section boundaries judged against criteria aligned with stitch length (zero or near zero boundary length, [0016-18]), the search associated with a number of iterations until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the stitch length (randomized to reduce stitch length (near zero boundary alignment), [0018]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zhang in view of Crear to conduct random walks for the boundary, the conclusion working with the best from those iterations based on criteria (and thereby associated with a number of iterations) because [0018] of Versluys teaches that iterations of randomization of boundary configurations can produce zero or near-zero boundary alignment which optimizes criteria taught in [0016-17].
As noted above, increasing processing speed with multiple imagers implies simultaneous operation, otherwise the divided work would simply take the same amount of time. It is optionally noted that simultaneous imaging is explicitly taught in [0018] of Hull.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang as modified teaches further including a local search algorithm to perform a local search for x- and y-coordinates as a function of part geometry or stitching region parameters (local search in geometry of single layer, p. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the random coordinate modification algorithm includes random modification of an x-coordinate or a y-coordinate of a set of points along the stitch boundary (randomly selecting positions of the stitch boundary, Crear [0067], Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to (as modified by [0005] of Crear) identify the first set of stitch coordinates based on a laser assignment to the object build area (dividing line 6 based on initial assignment between lasers 1 and 2, Zhang p. 5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang as modified teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed.
Zhang does not disclose wherein the laser assignment includes a scan vector overlap of a first laser and a second laser at the stitch boundary.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches wherein the laser assignment includes a scan vector overlap of a first laser and a second laser at the stitch boundary ([0066], Figs. 13-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus to include random modification because [0066] of Crear teaches that having scan vector end gaps (can vector overlap) helps to improve strength by spreading out the stitch so it is not a sharp boundary through the entire structure.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to (as modified by [0005] of Crear) identify a stitch geometry based on a location of an object part area or the at least one keep-out zone (final optimization line 5 set to avoid location of small cross-sectional structure, Crear p. 5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to (as modified by [0005] of Crear) identify the at least one keep-out zone based on a location of a small cross-sectional structure of an object part to be additively manufactured, bus it not explicit as to why.
Zhang teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Zhang does not disclose identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on location of a high stress area of an object part to be additively manufactured.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on location of a high stress area of an object part to be additively manufactured (stitching regions can have not desired material properties, [0008], including strength, [0066]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus to include random modification because [0008] of Crear teaches that sensitive areas should not have stitching because stitching regions can have undesirable properties and [0066] teaches that as stitch can reduce strength. Accordingly, avoiding a stitch in an area where weakness would be a problem constitutes a high stress keep-out zone.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed and the modification by processor circuitry (teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to (as modified by [0005] of Crear). Zhang does not disclose identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on a printer setting of a printer selected for the additive manufacturing or a material property of a material selected for the object build area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on a material property of a material selected for the object build area (avoiding an undesirable material property, [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus to include random modification because [0008] of Crear teaches that sensitive areas should not have stitching because stitching can alter material properties that may not be desired.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to (as modified by [0005] of Crear) adjust the first set of stitch coordinates to support laser load balancing (abstract of Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses a method comprising: identifying at least one keep-out zone of an object build area in which stitching is to be reduced during additive manufacturing (small cross-sectional structure shown between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2) using a first laser and a second laser (p. 1); determining a first set of stitch coordinates corresponding to a stitching region of the object (coordinates of dividing line 6, p. 5, Fig. 2); the stitching region including a stitch boundary of the stitching region (boundary of dividing line 6, p. 5, Fig. 2), the stitch boundary formed using a first stitch length and a second stitch length (applying the interpretation that first stitch and second stitch refer to the length of the boundary at the edge of the region irradiated by the first laser and the region irradiated by the second laser, respectively, the stitch from the first laser and the stitch from second laser each inherently have a length), the stitch boundary bordering the at least one keep-out zone (coordinates of dividing line 6 borders region between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2), the stitch boundary formed using a first stitch length and a second stitch length (applying the interpretation that first stitch and second stitch refer to the length of the boundary at the edge of the region irradiated by the first laser and the region irradiated by the second laser, respectively, the stitch from the first laser and the stitch from second laser each inherently have a length), the stitch boundary bordering the at least one keep-out zone (coordinates of dividing line 6 borders region between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2); generating a second set of stitch coordinates reducing stitching in the at least one keep-out zone of the object build area (final optimization line 5, p. 5, Fig. 2); initiate the additive manufacturing based on the second set of stitch coordinates (finally, path planning and filling are performed, p. 5), distributing a first workload of the first laser over a first build area on a first side of the stitch boundary, evenly, with a second workload of the second laser over a second build area on a second side of the stitch boundary (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), wherein the first workload of the first laser is not more than the second workload of the second laser (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), and the second workload of the second laser is not more than the first workload of the first laser (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), and further wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing (repeated discussion of equalizing the processing time of the two lasers implies operating in unison so that time is saved); and increase at least one of: a build speed, a build throughput, and a build efficiency of the additive manufacturing relative to a default setting (improved build efficiency, “The partition line and the contour loop are Boolean-computed, thereby avoiding the optimal splitting line that passes through the thin-walled or column-shaped support, and at the same time avoiding the problem of low efficiency caused by the frequent start-stops caused by scanning the small area of the galvanometer mirror”, p. 5; “ensure that the work load of each laser galvanometric system is balanced and optimal efficiency is achieved”, p. 2).
Zhang teaches the method substantially as claimed. Zhang does not disclose the second set of stitch coordinates determined by using a random coordinate modification algorithm, the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search for the stitch boundary and stitch length, the search associated with a number of iterations until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length. While Zhang implies operating the lasers in unison to maximize efficiency by equalizing the processing time for each laser in a multi-laser system, this is not explicit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches the second set of stitch coordinates determined using a random coordinate modification algorithm (reducing width of stitching region 264 from W1 to W2, [0065], [0003] [0067]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the randomization taught in [0067] of Crear and the reduction in stitching region width in [0065] of Crear because [0065] of Crear teaches reducing stitch region width improves build strategy parameters and [0066-67] of Crear teaches that randomization helps to improve strength by spreading out the stitch so it is not a sharp boundary through the entire structure. Crear teaches wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing (“using two or more irradiation devices may be advantageous to create larger objects faster… each two-dimensional image of each layer includes assignments for different irradiation devices to form different regions of the object”, [0007]; faster creation only makes sense with parallel operation, sequential operation would not reduce the creation time).
Zhang in view of Crear teaches a method substantially as claimed. Zhang in view of Crear does not specify the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search associated with a number of iterations [until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length].
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying boundaries for areas solidified by a laser for additive manufacturing, ([0004]), Versluys teaches the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search for the stitch boundary and stitch length (generating a random walk pathway for the section boundaries judged against criteria aligned with stitch length (zero or near zero boundary length, [0016-18]), the timed search associated with a number of iterations until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length (randomized to reduce stitch length (near zero boundary alignment), [0018]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zhang in view of Crear to conduct random walks for the boundary, the conclusion working with the best from those iterations based on criteria (and thereby associated with a number of iterations) because [0018] of Versluys teaches that iterations of randomization of boundary configurations can produce zero or near-zero boundary alignment which optimizes criteria taught in [0016-17].
As noted above, increasing processing speed with multiple imagers implies simultaneous operation, otherwise the divided work would simply take the same amount of time. It is optionally noted that simultaneous imaging is explicitly taught in [0018] of Hull.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang as modified teaches further including a local search algorithm to perform a local search for x- and y-coordinates as a function of part geometry or stitching region parameters (local search in geometry of single layer, p. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the random coordinate modification algorithm includes random modification of an x-coordinate or a y-coordinate of a set of points along the stitch boundary (randomly selecting positions of the stitch boundary, Crear [0067], Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang as modified teaches identifying the first set of stitch coordinates based on a laser assignment to the object build area (dividing line 6 based on initial assignment between lasers 1 and 2, p. 5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang as modified teaches the method substantially as claimed.
Zhang does not disclose wherein the laser assignment includes a scan vector overlap of a first laser and a second laser at the stitch boundary.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches wherein the laser assignment includes a scan vector overlap of a first laser and a second laser at the stitch boundary ([0066], Figs. 13-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method to include random modification because [0066] of Crear teaches that having scan vector end gaps (can vector overlap) helps to improve strength by spreading out the stitch so it is not a sharp boundary through the entire structure.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang as modified teaches identifying a stitch geometry based on a location of an object part area or the at least one keep-out zone (final optimization line 5 set to avoid location of small cross-sectional structure, p. 5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang as modified teaches to (as modified by [0005] of Crear) identify the at least one keep-out zone based on a location of a small cross-sectional structure of an object part to be additively manufactured, bus it not explicit as to why.
Zhang teaches a method substantially as claimed. Zhang does not disclose identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on location of a high stress area of an object part to be additively manufactured.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on location of a high stress area of an object part to be additively manufactured (stitching regions can have not desired material properties, [0008], including strength, [0066]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method to include random modification because [0008] of Crear teaches that sensitive areas should not have stitching because stitching regions can have undesirable properties and [0066] teaches that as stitch can reduce strength. Accordingly, avoiding a stitch in an area where weakness would be a problem constitutes a high stress keep-out zone.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang as modified teaches a method substantially as claimed. Zhang does not disclose identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on a printer setting of a printer selected for the additive manufacturing or a material property of a material selected for the object build area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches identifying the at least one keep-out zone based on a material property of a material selected for the object build area (avoiding an undesirable material property, [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method to include random modification because [0008] of Crear teaches that sensitive areas should not have stitching because stitching can alter material properties that may not be desired.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang as modified teaches adjusting the first set of stitch coordinates to support laser load balancing (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses instructions to: identify at least one keep-out zone of an object build area in which stitching is to be reduced during additive manufacturing (small cross-sectional structure shown between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2) using a first laser and a second laser (p. 1); determine a first set of stitch coordinates corresponding to a stitching region of the object (coordinates of dividing line 6, p. 5, Fig. 2); the stitching region including a stitch boundary of the stitching region (boundary of dividing line 6, p. 5, Fig. 2), the stitch boundary formed using a first stitch length and a second stitch length (applying the interpretation that first stitch and second stitch refer to the length of the boundary at the edge of the region irradiated by the first laser and the region irradiated by the second laser, respectively, the stitch from the first laser and the stitch from second laser each inherently have a length), the stitch boundary bordering the at least one keep-out zone (coordinates of dividing line 6 borders region between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2), the stitch boundary formed using a first stitch length and a second stitch length (applying the interpretation that first stitch and second stitch refer to the length of the boundary at the edge of the region irradiated by the first laser and the region irradiated by the second laser, respectively, the stitch from the first laser and the stitch from second laser each inherently have a length), the stitch boundary bordering the at least one keep-out zone (coordinates of dividing line 6 borders region between middle reference labels for numerals 5 (final optimization stitch) and 6 (initial stitch), p. 3, Fig. 2); generate a second set of stitch coordinates reducing stitching in the at least one keep-out zone of the object build area (final optimization line 5, p. 5, Fig. 2); initiate the additive manufacturing based on the second set of stitch coordinates (finally, path planning and filling are performed, p. 5), distributing a first workload of the first laser over a first build area on a first side of the stitch boundary, evenly, with a second workload of the second laser over a second build area on a second side of the stitch boundary (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), wherein the first workload of the first laser is not more than the second workload of the second laser (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), and the second workload of the second laser is not more than the first workload of the first laser (load balancing, abstract, p. 5), and further wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing (repeated discussion of equalizing the processing time of the two lasers implies operating in unison so that time is saved); and increase at least one of: a build speed, a build throughput, and a build efficiency of the additive manufacturing relative to a default setting (improved build efficiency, “The partition line and the contour loop are Boolean-computed, thereby avoiding the optimal splitting line that passes through the thin-walled or column-shaped support, and at the same time avoiding the problem of low efficiency caused by the frequent start-stops caused by scanning the small area of the galvanometer mirror”, p. 5; “ensure that the work load of each laser galvanometric system is balanced and optimal efficiency is achieved”, p. 2).
Zhang teaches instructions for an apparatus substantially as claimed. Zhang is silent about how the method is followed, though it teaches numerous calculations performed iteratively (see i+1 language on p. 2). Zhang does not disclose at least one computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to at least execute the instructions. Zhang also does not disclose that the second set of stitch coordinates determined by using a random coordinate modification algorithm, the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search for the stitch boundary and stitch length, the search associated with a number of iterations until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length. While Zhang implies operating the lasers in unison to maximize efficiency by equalizing the processing time for each laser in a multi-laser system, this is not explicit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying a stitching region for additive manufacturing, ([0008]), Crear teaches at least one computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to at least execute the instructions ([0075]); the second set of stitch coordinates determined using a random coordinate modification algorithm (reducing width of stitching region 264 from W1 to W2, [0065]; [0003] [0067]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to implement the method on a computer-readable search medium because [0075] of Crear teaches that instructions for modifying a stitch region ([0008]) can be implemented by a computer that way and to have modified Zhang to incorporate the randomization taught in [0067] of Crear and the reduction in stitching region width in [0065] of Crear because [0065] of Crear teaches reducing stitch region width improves build strategy parameters and [0066-67] of Crear teaches that randomization helps to improve strength by spreading out the stitch so it is not a sharp boundary through the entire structure. Crear teaches wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing (“using two or more irradiation devices may be advantageous to create larger objects faster… each two-dimensional image of each layer includes assignments for different irradiation devices to form different regions of the object”, [0007]; faster creation only makes sense with parallel operation, sequential operation would not reduce the creation time).
Zhang in view of Crear teaches instructions for an apparatus substantially as claimed. Zhang in view of Crear does not specify the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a timed search associated with a number of iterations [until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length].
However, in the same field of endeavor of modifying boundaries for areas solidified by a laser for additive manufacturing, ([0004]), Versluys teaches the random coordinate modification algorithm including local gradients to cover a search for the stitch boundary and stitch length (generating a random walk pathway for the section boundaries judged against criteria aligned with stitch length (zero or near zero boundary length, [0016-18]), the timed search associated with a number of iterations until the second set of stitch coordinates reduce the first stitch length or the second stitch length (randomized to reduce stitch length (near zero boundary alignment), [0018]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zhang in view of Crear to conduct random walks for the boundary, the conclusion working with the best from those iterations based on criteria (and thereby associated with a number of iterations) because [0018] of Versluys teaches that iterations of randomization of boundary configurations can produce zero or near-zero boundary alignment which optimizes criteria taught in [0016-17].
As noted above, increasing processing speed with multiple imagers implies simultaneous operation, otherwise the divided work would simply take the same amount of time. It is optionally noted that simultaneous imaging is explicitly taught in [0018] of Hull.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang as modified teaches identifying the first set of stitch coordinates based on a laser assignment to the object build area (dividing line 6 based on initial assignment between laser s 1 and 2, p. 5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the processor circuitry further executes the instructions to enhance a build parameter of the additive manufacturing relative to a default setting (stitch length, as modified, Versluys [0016-18]).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the build parameter comprises stitch length (stitch length, as modified, Versluys [0016-18]).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the first build area on the first side of the stitch boundary is the same as the second build area on the second side of the stitch boundary (load balancing entails equalizing these build areas, Zhang abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112a have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10, and 19, but has not argued why the amended claims comply with the written description requirement, particularly with similar issues to the previous set of claims.
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10, and 19, but has not argued why the amended claims comply with the written description requirement, particularly with similar issues to the previous set of claims.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn in view of the December 5, 2025 Memorandum regarding Ex Parte Desjardins, the improvement to stitch planning is sufficient for all claims to be patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 17, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhang is completely silent with respect to "initiate the additive manufacturing based on the second set of stitch coordinates, distributing a first workload of the first laser over a first build area on a first side of the stitch boundary, evenly, with a second workload of the second laser over a second build area on a second side of the stitch boundary, wherein the first workload of the first laser is not more than the second workload of the second laser, and the second workload of the second laser is not more than the first workload of the first laser, and further wherein the first laser and the second laser are working in unison during the additive manufacturing; and increase at least one of: a build speed, a build throughput, and a build efficiency of the additive manufacturing relative to a default setting." On the contrary, as noted above, Zhang teaches load balancing, which entails balancing the workload of the first laser and the second laser. Zhang teaches equalizing the time for each laser. In the context of a multi-laser SLM forming apparatus, the time is equalized so that the lasers, operating in parallel, finish the construction in the least time possible. Further, [0007] of Crear teaches “using two or more irradiation devices may be advantageous to create larger objects faster… each two-dimensional image of each layer includes assignments for different irradiation devices to form different regions of the object.” Faster creation only makes sense with parallel operation, sequential operation would not reduce the creation time. In any event, simultaneous imaging is explicitly taught in [0018] of Hull, and it would be obvious to use the lasers simultaneously to reduce the production time, a stated goal of Crear ([0007]) and the contextually understood goal of “optimal efficiency” at the top of page 2 of Zhang. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are based on this alleged deficiency of Zhang and are similarly unpersuasive.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744