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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 19, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the appropriate component or step rather than a mere label. For example, figures 1 and 2 do not provide any structural detail for various elements that would aid in understanding of the invention. Furthermore, figures 3 and 4 merely show a label corresponding to method steps, where the appropriate method step should be described instead. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to comply with language and format guidelines set forth in MPEP § 608.01(b)(C). For instance, the instant abstract is a bulleted list that contains several instances of legal phraseology, while a proper abstract is a single paragraph in narrative form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0011] recites “According to embodiments, it is proposed a system comprising,” which should be corrected to “According to embodiments, a system is proposed comprising.”
Paragraph [0013] recites “According to embodiments, it is proposed a computer readable medium encoding a machine-executable program of instructions to perform,” which should be corrected to “According to embodiments, a computer readable medium encoding a machine-executable program of instructions is proposed to perform.”
Paragraph [0029] recites “(or machine…),” which should be corrected to “(or machine).”
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Means for performing in Claims 12 and 15. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” that is a generic placeholder;
The term “means is modified by functional language, e.g., means for performing;
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-16 are 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim limitation “means for performing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes the functions performed by said means, the specification is devoid of any specific structure or algorithm as a means for performing said functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 13-16, the claims require the limitations of Claim 12, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. A method for automatic prediction of a thermal behaviour of a material (2) composing an object (3) during laser additive manufacturing, comprising:
discretizing an area surrounding said object, as a mesh of cells and associating an initial time point to each cell of said mesh;
iteratively updating (S1) a timer and comparing (S2) a time provided by said timer with said times points; and
triggering an update when said time reaches a time point associated with a given cell, the update (S3) comprising:
determining (S31) a first quantity of energy exchanged from a previous time point associated with said given cell;
updating (S32) at least an aggregation state, a temperature and said time point associated with said given cell, according to said first quantity of energy;
determining (S33) a second quantity of energy, exchanged with a set of neighbour cells, until a closest in time between said time point associated with said given cell, and respective time points associated with one or more neighbour cells of the set of neighbour cells; and
updating again (S34) said aggregation state and said temperature.
The limitations discretizing an area surrounding said object, associating an initial time point to each cell of said mesh, comparing (S2) a time, triggering an update, determining (S31) a first quantity of energy, updating at least an aggregation state, determining (S33) a second quantity of energy, and updating again (S34) said aggregation state are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, (i.e., mental observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions) and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, or mathematical calculations). Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, discretizing an area using a mesh is interpreted as the mathematical concept of the finite difference method. Further, a user can perform the mental evaluations of associating a time point with each cell, and determining quantities of energy. A user may use pen and paper to record the time associations and calculate a quantity of energy. A user can perform the mental observations of comparing times and determining when a time reaches a time point.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A method for automatic prediction of a thermal behaviour of a material (2) composing an object (3) during laser additive manufacturing (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
iteratively updating (S1) a timer (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
triggering an update (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
updating (S32) at least an aggregation state, a temperature and said time point associated with said given cell, according to said first quantity of energy (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
updating again (S34) said aggregation state and said temperature (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activities of iteratively updating a timer, triggering an update, updating at least an aggregation state, and updating again said aggregation state are considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] ii. Performing repetitive calculations […] iii. Electronic recordkeeping […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The method of claim 1, wherein updating (S32) and updating again (S34) comprise predicting generation of pores; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of predicting generation of pores. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The method of claim 2, further comprising analysing results of said update (S3) of a set of said mesh to detect conditions of defects; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of analyzing results and detecting conditions of defects.
and, accordingly, trigger actions; this limitation is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites The method according to claim 3, wherein said conditions are based on the prediction of said generation of pores; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of using predictions to detect conditions of defects.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The method of claim 1, further comprising analysing results of said update (S3) of a set of said mesh to detect conditions of defects; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of analyzing results and detecting conditions of defects.
and, accordingly, trigger actions; this limitation is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein said area is at least a part of an operation surface of said material onto which a laser beam operates; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein said first quantity of energy comprises energy exchanged between said given cell and neighbour cells, energy lost by contact with an outside system, and energy injected by a laser beam; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites The method according to claim 7, wherein energy of said laser beam is injected to a set of cells surrounding said given cell corresponding to the laser beam; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The method according to claim 8, wherein said energy is injected with a value decreasing with a distance to said given cell corresponding to the laser beam; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein said update is based on data provided by an additive manufacturing apparatus (1); this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 11 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
No: Claim(s) 11 is not directed to a patent eligible statutory category.
Claim 11 is directed to a “computer readable medium.” Under step 1 of the 35 U.S.C 101 analysis determining statutory category, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, see MPEP § 2106.03. The claim is directed to a product lacking a physical or tangible structure in the form of an organizational structure, such as a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”). “Computer readable medium” could be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Applicant may amend the claim to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” to ensure that the claim is eligible under step 1.
The remaining limitations of Claim 11 are directed to the limitations of Claim 1, and Claim 11 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “computer readable medium” and “machine-executable program of instructions” recite mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites significantly similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional element “simulation apparatus” recites mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f), and does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 2, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites The simulation apparatus of claim 12, wherein the means comprises: an array of processors; and at least one shared memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the performance of the apparatus; this limitation recites the further additional elements “array of processors,” “shared memory,” and “computer program code,” which are high level recitations of generic computer components and/or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP §2106.05(f).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 14 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 12, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional limitation “additive manufacturing apparatus” merely links the abstract ideas to a particular field of use and/or technological environment as in MPEP § 2106.05(h), and the additional limitation does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites The system according to claim 15, further comprising a monitoring apparatus (42) configured to detect conditions of defects; this limitation recites the further additional element “monitoring apparatus,” which is a high level recitation of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and, accordingly, trigger actions; this limitation is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 16 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zivcak et al. (Živčák, J., M. Šarik, and Radovan Hudak. "FEA simulation of thermal processes during the direct metal laser sintering of Ti64 titanium powder." Measurement 94 (2016): 893-901.), hereinafter Zivcak, in view of Mejia-Parra et al (Mejia-Parra, Daniel, Diego Montoya-Zapata, Ander Arbelaiz, Aitor Moreno, Jorge Posada, and Oscar Ruiz-Salguero. "Fast analytic simulation for multi-laser heating of sheet metal in GPU." Materials 11, no. 11 (2018): 2078.), hereinafter Mejia-Parra, further in view of Khanzadeh et al. (Khanzadeh, Mojtaba, Sudipta Chowdhury, Linkan Bian, and Mark A. Tschopp. "A methodology for predicting porosity from thermal imaging of melt pools in additive manufacturing thin wall sections." In International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, vol. 50732, p. V002T01A044. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.), hereinafter Khanzadeh.
Regarding Claim 1, Zivcak teaches A method for automatic prediction of a thermal behaviour of a material (2) composing an object (3) during laser additive manufacturing (“For the purpose of the analysis of thermal processes occurring during the [direct metal laser sintering (DMLS)] process, the measuring methodology was proposed, using the Abaqus simulation software that operates on the principle of finite element analysis (FEA).”) (e.g., page 2, column 1, paragraph 1).
comprising: discretizing an area surrounding said object, as a mesh of cells (“Thermal field is a scalar function of temperature as the function of spatial coordinates (x, y, z) and time t [given by equation (1)] […] Creation of a testing 3D FEA model in the Abaqus environment [...] For the purpose of more accurate calculation, denser netting was created in the area of individual layers and also on the layers themselves. The number of layers is 12. The mesh of layers is formed by orthogonal elements with the dimensions 0.25 x 0.25 mm; it means that in the x and y axes there are 40 x 40 elements, representing 1600 elements within one layer.”) (e.g., page 2, column 1, paragraph 2; page 6, column 1, paragraphs 2 and 3).
the update (S3) comprising: determining (S31) a first quantity of energy exchanged from a previous time point associated with said given cell (“We are examining the case of heat conduction through a board, occurring at sudden temperature increase on one of the board surfaces [...] In our case, heat Q1 = q1SΔτ enters the layer with the thickness of Δx and the surface of S in time Δτ.” The heat energy entering a layer is interpreted as a first quantity of energy.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 1; page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
updating (S32) at least an aggregation state, a temperature and said time point associated with said given cell, according to said first quantity of energy (“Thermal field is a scalar function of temperature as the function of spatial coordinates (x, y, z) and time t [given by equation (1)] […] The temperature of the layer is thus increased in the heat representing the difference between these temperatures, i.e. [equation (8)].”) (e.g., page 2, column 1, paragraph 2; page 4 column 1, paragraph 2).
determining (S33) a second quantity of energy, exchanged with a set of neighbour cells, until a closest in time between said time point associated with said given cell, and respective time points associated with one or more neighbour cells of the set of neighbour cells (“from the same layer, in the same period of time, the heat Q2 = q2SΔτ exits, while q1 and q2 are heat flux densities on the entering and exiting surfaces.” Heat energy leaving the layer, which enters neighboring cells, is interpreted as a second quantity of energy, wherein Δτ may be the time between the time point of a given cell and a time point of a neighbor cell.) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
and updating again (S34) said aggregation state and said temperature (“The temperature of the layer is thus increased in the heat representing the difference between these temperatures, i.e. [equation (8)].”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
However, Zivcak does not appear to specifically teach associating an initial time point to each cell of said mesh; iteratively updating (S1) a timer and comparing (S2) a time provided by said timer with said times points; and triggering an update when said time reaches a time point associated with a given cell […] updating (S32) at least an aggregation state […] and updating again (S34) said aggregation state.
On the other hand, Mejia-Parra, which relates similarly to modeling laser sintering, does teach associating an initial time point to each cell of said mesh (“Discretize laser trajectories: As discussed in Section 3.2, the laser beam trajectories xk0(t) are discretized as sequences of piecewise linear trajectories [xk0(0), xk0(t1), ... xk0(Tf)],” wherein the time dependent trajectories may be associated with the time dependent thermal field in equation (1) of Zivcak.) (e.g., page 5, section 3.3, step 1)
iteratively updating (S1) a timer and comparing (S2) a time provided by said timer with said times points (“Update current time t: The current simulation time t=tl+1 is updated according to the previous time t0 = tl, in accordance with the discretization of trajectories from step 1.”) (e.g., page 5, section 3.3, step 4).
and triggering an update when said time reaches a time point associated with a given cell (“For each laser beam k: This inner loop computes the pseudo coefficients θkij(t) for each laser beam (k = 1 ... num_lasers) [...] Question: Is laser beam k turned on?: This step allows for simulating asynchronous laser beams by asking at the current time t if the laser is turned on/off [...] The laser is turned on by the simulation by setting its corresponding power input Pk. In the case of the laser being turned off, the simulation simply sets its power to 0.” An update is performed when a laser beam is turned on at a given time point, wherein the update may be performed at the cell associated with the laser beam trajectory at the given time.) (e.g., page 5, section 3.3, steps 5-7).
However, neither Zivcak nor Mejia-Parra teaches updating at least an aggregation state […] and updating again said aggregation state.
On the other hand, Khanzadeh, which relates similarly to modeling laser sintering, does teach updating at least an aggregation state (Figure 2 is an “[e]xample of temperature distribution taken from the top surface of the melt pool in (a) contour plot and (b) 3-D scatter plot where the temperatures below the melting temperature have been removed.” A cell being melted or not melted according to its temperature is interpreted as an aggregation state, and the scatter plot removing cells that are not melted is interpreted as updating an aggregations state of the cell.) (e.g., page 4, figure 2).
and updating again said aggregation state (Figure 2 is an “[e]xample of temperature distribution taken from the top surface of the melt pool in (a) contour plot and (b) 3-D scatter plot where the temperatures below the melting temperature have been removed.” A cell being melted or not melted according to its temperature is interpreted as an aggregation state, and the scatter plot removing cells that are not melted is interpreted as updating an aggregations state of the cell.) (e.g., page 4, figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Zivcak with Mejia-Parra. The claimed invention is considered to be using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Zivcak teaches a method for simulating direct metal laser sintering using finite element analysis. However, Zivcak does not appear to specifically teach associating a time point to each cell, iterating a timer, and updating a cell when the timer reaches a time associated with a cell. On the other hand, Mejia-Parra does teach associating a time point with each cell along a laser path, updating a timer, and performing an update when a time matches a point when a laser is on. As both Zivcak and Mejia-Parra relate to simulating laser machining, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the improvement of updating cells according to an associated time, and the results would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to improve the simulation of Zivcak by focusing computation on the time dependent path of a laser beam as in Mejia-Parra in order to reduce the complexity of the simulation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra with Khanzadeh. The claimed invention is considered to be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Zivcak teaches a method for simulating direct metal laser sintering using finite element analysis. However, Zivcak does not appear to specifically teach updating an aggregation state and detecting conditions of defects. On the other hand, Khanzadeh, which relates similarly to simulating laser based additive manufacturing, does teach updating a melt state, interpreted as an aggregation state, predicting pores, and detecting conditions of defects. As both Zivcak and Khanzadeh relate to laser sintering, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the FEA simulation of Zivcak and the melt pool analysis of Khanzadeh; in combination, the simulation of Zivcak and the melt pool analysis of Khanzadeh merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the simulation of Zivcak with the melt pool analysis of Khanzadeh in order to better predict product quality from direct laser sintering.
Regarding Claim 2, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method of claim 1. Khanzadeh further teaches wherein updating (S32) and updating again (S34) comprise predicting generation of pores (“Herein, we propose a novel porosity prediction method based on morphological features and the temperature distribution of the top surface of the melt pool as the LBAM part is being built. Self-organizing maps (SOM) are then used to further analyze the 2D melt pool dataset to identify similar and dissimilar melt pools [...] First, depending on the SOM model, established melt pool models are clustered. For example, in a model with 4x4 SOM map, we measure the correlation among different clusters which is a 16x16 matrix. The correlation among 16 clusters is demonstrated in Figure 7 [...] For 4x4 SOM, we have identified four clusters containing 49 melt pools as pores.”) (e.g., page 1, abstract; page 6, column 1, last paragraph; page 7, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method of claim 2. Khanzadeh further teaches the method further comprising analysing results of said update (S3) of a set of said mesh to detect conditions of defects and, accordingly, trigger actions (“Based on the characterization and modeling of melt pool signals, [additive manufacturing (AM)] process parameters can be proactively adjusted to avoid the formation of process defects, and eventually improve the viability of AM applications in many industrial sectors.”) (e.g., page 8, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method of claim 3. Khanzadeh further teaches wherein said conditions are based on the prediction of said generation of pores (“Based on the characterization and modeling of melt pool signals, [additive manufacturing (AM)] process parameters can be proactively adjusted to avoid the formation of process defects, and eventually improve the viability of AM applications in many industrial sectors.” The modeling of melt pools is interpreted as predicting pores which are conditions of defects.) (e.g., page 8, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method of claim 1. Khanzadeh further teaches the method further comprising analysing results of said update (S3) of a set of said mesh to detect conditions of defects and, accordingly, trigger actions (“Based on the characterization and modeling of melt pool signals, [additive manufacturing (AM)] process parameters can be proactively adjusted to avoid the formation of process defects, and eventually improve the viability of AM applications in many industrial sectors.”) (e.g., page 8, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method according to claim 1. Zivcak further teaches wherein said area is at least a part of an operation surface of said material onto which a laser beam operates (Figures 2, 5, and 6 illustrate the FEA simulation model of the building platform and individual metal powder layers on which the laser sintering is performed.) (e.g., page 3, figure 2; page 7, figures 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method according to claim 1. Zivcak further teaches wherein said first quantity of energy comprises energy exchanged between said given cell and neighbour cells, energy lost by contact with an outside system, and energy injected by a laser beam (“We are examining the case of heat conduction through a board, occurring at sudden temperature increase on one of the board surfaces [...] In our case, heat Q1 = q1SΔτ enters the layer with the thickness of Δx and the surface of S in time Δτ and from the same layer, in the same period of time, the heat Q2 = q2SΔτ exits, while q1 and q2 are heat flux densities on the entering and exiting surfaces.” Q1 is interpreted as energy injected by a laser beam, and Q2 is interpreted as energy exchanged with neighbor cells and energy lost to an outside system.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 1; page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method according to claim 1. Zivcak further teaches wherein energy of said laser beam is injected to a set of cells surrounding said given cell corresponding to the laser beam (Figure 8 illustrates cells during the simulation of the laser sintering process. Heat is injected into cells surrounding a cell corresponding to a laser through the heat transfer described by equations (8) and (9).) (e.g., page 4, column 1, equations (8) and (9); page 8, figure 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method according to claim 1. Zivcak further teaches wherein said energy is injected with a value decreasing with a distance to said given cell corresponding to the laser beam (Figure 8 illustrates cells further away from a cell onto which a laser is directed having a lower temperature than the cell onto which a laser is directed.) (e.g., page 8, figure 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method according to claim 1. Zivcak further teaches wherein said update is based on data provided by an additive manufacturing apparatus (1) (Zivcak discloses an EOSINT M 289 sintering machine, which is used to provide data informing the disclosed simulation) (e.g., page 5, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 11, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches a method according to claim 1. Zivcak further teaches A computer readable medium encoding a machine-executable program of instructions (“Creation of a testing 3D FEA model in the Abaqus environment. The emphasis was put especially on adherence to the required dimensions, simplification of the simulation process, and reduction in the requirements regarding the calculation performance of the system and the time required to perform the analysis.” The Abaqus environment is interpreted as a computer program.) (e.g., page 6, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Zivcak teaches A simulation apparatus (41) for automatic prediction of a thermal behavior of a material (2) composing an object (3) during laser additive manufacturing (“Creation of a testing 3D FEA model in the Abaqus environment. The emphasis was put especially on adherence to the required dimensions, simplification of the simulation process, and reduction in the requirements regarding the calculation performance of the system and the time required to perform the analysis.” The Abaqus environment is interpreted as a computer program running on a computer, wherein the computer is a simulation apparatus.) (e.g., page 6, column 1, paragraph 1).
The remaining limitations of Claim 12 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Zivcak with Mejia-Parra for the same reasons as in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra with Khanzadeh for the same reasons as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 2, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The method according to claim 1. Zivcak further teaches wherein the means comprises: an array of processors; and at least one shared memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the performance of the apparatus (“Creation of a testing 3D FEA model in the Abaqus environment. The emphasis was put especially on adherence to the required dimensions, simplification of the simulation process, and reduction in the requirements regarding the calculation performance of the system and the time required to perform the analysis.” The Abaqus environment is interpreted as a computer program running on a computer, wherein the computer may comprise a multi-core processor and memory.) (e.g., page 6, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches A system comprising: an apparatus according to claim 12. Zivcak further teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (1) (Zivcak discloses an EOSINT M 289 sintering machine, which is used to provide data informing the disclosed simulation) (e.g., page 5, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 16, Zivcak in view of Mejia-Parra and Khanzadeh teaches The system according to claim 15. Khanzadeh further teaches the system further comprising a monitoring apparatus (42) configured to detect conditions of defects and, accordingly, trigger actions (“OPTOMEC LENS 750 machine equipped 1 kW Nd:YAG laser, pyrometer and in-chamber thermal camera (Figure 6(b)), is used to fabricate single track Ti-6A1-4V thin walls (Figure 6(a)).” The pyrometer and thermal camera are interpreted as a monitoring apparatus.) (e.g., page 5, column 1, paragraph 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh et al. (Singh, A. K., and Regalla Srinivasa Prakash. "DOE based three‐dimensional finite element analysis for predicting density of a laser‐sintered part." Rapid Prototyping Journal 16, no. 6 (2010): 460-467.) teaches a method for predicting the density of a laser-sintered part using finite element analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189