DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-16 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Abstract, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 6, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments, filed April 30, 2026, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite mental processes. Specifically, Applicant argues that the method is performed by a simulation apparatus comprising an array of processors and shared memory. Applicant further argues that the complexity of the claimed steps makes the method impractical to perform in the human mind, as the mesh of cells may be on the order of 106 to 109 elements, wherein the instant specification further describes the method as being performed in real time.
Regarding the argument that the claim requires a simulation apparatus, the simulation apparatus merely represents instructions to perform the method on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Regarding the argument that the method is too complex to be performed in the human mind, the claims do not provide a specific size for the mesh of cells; thus, the claims do not preclude simple models which may be practicably operated on by a human using pen and paper. Furthermore, discretizing an area, determining quantities of energy, and updating aggregation states, temperatures, and time points associated with a cell are interpreted as mathematical concepts. Iteratively updating a timer is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and it is evaluated under step 2A prong II and step 2B of the abstract idea analysis.
Applicant next argues that the claims do not recite mathematical concepts. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an equation, formula, or calculation in mathematical form. Applicant argues that terms such as “quantity of energy,” “temperature,” “aggregation state,” and “thermal gradient” identify physical quantities, not mathematical concepts. Further, Applicant argues that the claims are merely based on math instead of reciting mathematical concepts.
Regarding this argument, “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989),” see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). While the identified terms are physical quantities, the claim recites steps amounting to calculating said quantities. Furthermore, these calculations, in light of the specification, are mathematical calculations and not merely based on math. For instance, paragraph [0127] of the instant specification discloses the mathematical equation defining a quantity of energy that depends on neighbor cells. Thus, for example, steps S31 and S33 from the claims, in light of the specification, merely represent the mathematical calculation recited in paragraph [0127] of the instant specification.
Applicant next argues that the claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. First, applicant argues that the claim recites a specific improvement to a technology.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claims integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application by providing an improvement in technology, the Examiner notes that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement,” see MPEP § 2106.05(a) referenced by MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). While the improvement can be provided by one or more additional element(s) in combination with the judicial exception(s), the additional elements of Claim 1 merely recite generic computer components as instructions to apply the abstract idea(s) on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or a general field of use and technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)-(h).
Applicant further argues that the claim is analogous to Diehr, and the claims provide a practical application by using the simulation mesh to predict thermal behavior and enable abort instructions or operator alerts. Regarding this argument, the claims do not specifically recite aborting a laser sintering process or alerting an operator. The Examiner notes that alerting an operator may be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity of sending or receiving information; the limitation may also be interpreted as an additional abstract idea directed to organizing human activity, e.g., “An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device,” see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The Examiner further notes that Claims 3 and 4 recite to “detect conditions of defects and, accordingly, trigger actions.” The limitation of triggering actions is interpreted as mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); however, Claim 3 or 4 may be used to provide a practical application analogous to Diehr if the claims were amended to recite specific manufacturing actions.
Applicant next argues that the claim recites a particular machine. Regarding this argument, the simulation apparatus comprising an array of processors and a shared memory represents mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer. While the array of processors would be more efficient at executing parallel programs, the structure of the simulation apparatus is not defined in a way that specifically ties it to the finite element method defined in the claims. That is, as claimed, any parallel program could be run on the simulation apparatus, and the simulation apparatus is thus a generic computer or represents generic computer components.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claim provides significantly more under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis. Specifically, applicant argues that the non-uniform, locally adaptive time-stepping algorithm is unconventional.
Regarding this argument, MPEP § 2106.05(II) states that any additional element or combination of elements that was considered insignificant extra-solution activity should be re-evaluated to determine if it is unconventional. However, Applicant has not provided why the identified insignificant extra-solution activity of updating a timer and triggering an update are not well-understood, routine conventional activity. Furthermore, the unconventional activity of adaptive time-stepping is encapsulated in the mathematical calculation of updating a time point and determining a time step. A claim that recites an unconventional abstract idea still recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner also notes that, in light of the allowable subject material found in the claims, novelty under 35 U.S.C 102 or 103 is not enough to show significantly more under step 2B of the eligibility analysis. “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the" ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9),” see MPEP § 2106.05(I).
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. A statement of reasons for allowable subject matter is provided below.
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) 1-13 and 15-16 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, the method performed by a simulation apparatus comprising an array of processors and at least one shared memory storing instructions that, when executed by the array of processors, cause the apparatus to perform steps 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 wherein an updated time step is determined for the given cell based on a thermal gradient associated with said given cell, such that the updated time step is shorter for a higher thermal gradient, and by adding the updated time step to a previous time step, such that time steps between updates are non-uniform across the mesh of cells.
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 concepts of finite difference method or finite element analysis. 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 again (S34) said aggregation state and said temperature (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“simulation apparatus,” “array of processors,” “at least one shared memory,” and “instructions” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
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, 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.
Regarding Claim 11, 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 “non-transitory computer readable medium encoding a machine executable program of instructions” 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 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of 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; 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; 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; Scheel et al. (Scheel, P., Edoardo Mazza, and Ehsan Hosseini. "Adaptive local-global multiscale approach for thermal simulation of the selective laser melting process." Additive Manufacturing 36 (2020): 101518.), hereinafter Scheel; and Hodge et al. (Hodge, N. E., R. M. Ferencz, and JM3218840 Solberg. "Implementation of a thermomechanical model for the simulation of selective laser melting." Computational Mechanics 54, no. 1 (2014): 33-51.), hereinafter Hodge, Claim 1 would not have been anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Zivcak, the closest prior art, teaches a finite element analysis (FEA) simulation for laser sintering, comprising discretizing an area surrounding an object (e.g., page 2, column 1, paragraph 2 and page 6, column 1, paragraph 2 and 3 discuss a FEA model in the Abaqus environment); determining (S31) a first quantity of energy exchanged from a previous time point associated with said given cell (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 1 and page 4, column 1, paragraph 2 discuss heat entering a layer, wherein the heat entering a layer is interpreted as a first quantity of energy); updating (S32) at least an aggregation state, a temperature and said time point associated with said given cell (e.g., page2, column 1, paragraph 2 and page 4, column 1, paragraph 2 discuss updating the temperature of a layer based on a thermal field); and determining (S33) a second quantity of energy, exchanged with a set of neighbor cells (“e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 2 discusses heat energy leaving the layer, interpreted as a second quantity of energy. However, Zivcak does not 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. Zivcak also does not teach the amended limitation wherein an updated time step is determined for the given cell based on a thermal gradient associate with said given cell, such that the updated time step is shorter for a higher thermal gradient.
Mejia-Parra teaches Associating an initial time point to each cell (e.g., page 5, section 3.3, step 1 discusses time points with cells of a mesh according to a laser beam trajectory as a function of time) and 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 (e.g., page 5, section 3.3, steps 4-7 discusses updating a time t, and comparing the time with the laser beam trajectory to determine if the laser beam is turned on. An update is triggered when the laser is on, and no update is performed when the laser is off). However, Mejia-Parra also does not teach updating an aggregation state and wherein an updated time step is determined for the given cell based on a thermal gradient associate with said given cell, such that the updated time step is shorter for a higher thermal gradient.
Khanzadeh teaches updating at least an aggregation state (e.g., page 4, fig 2 discusses a plot of elements according to their temperature, wherein elements below melting temperature are removed from the plot. Determining whether a cell is melted or not is interpreted as updating an aggregation state. However, Khanzadeh also does not teach wherein an updated time step is determined for the given cell based on a thermal gradient associate with said given cell, such that the updated time step is shorter for a higher thermal gradient.
Scheel, referencing Hodge, teaches a method for finite element thermal modeling of selective laser melting, comprising a global coarse mesh and local fine mesh. The method comprises determining (S31) a first quantity of energy exchanged from a previous time point associated with said given cell (e.g., page 6, column 1, last paragraph discusses initial temperatures imported from previously performed local calculations), updating at least an aggregation state, a temperature, and a next time point (e.g., page 4, column 2, fig 3 discloses a flow chart for the employed phase transition rule. Page 6, column 1, last paragraph discusses updating temperatures at nodes. Page 8, column 2, paragraph 2 discusses auto time stepping used from Hodge [32]; Hodge, page 12, column 1, box 1 discloses an algorithm to calculate a thermos mechanical solution over a time interval. The algorithm in Box 1 reduces the time step if the multi-physics model does not converge), and determining (S33) a second quantity of energy, exchanged with a set of neighbor cells (e.g., page 6, column 1, last paragraph discusses boundary temperatures imported from the global simulation). However, Scheel does not teach wherein an updated time step is determined for the given cell based on a thermal gradient associate with said given cell, such that the updated time step is shorter for a higher thermal gradient. Hodge, referenced by Scheel to perform time-stepping, does teach reducing the time step in response to a temperature solution not converging, which may be based on a temperature gradient. However, Hodge only discloses reducing the time step in response to non-convergence, not increasing or decreasing a time step based directly on the thermal gradient associated with a cell.
In summary, the prior art above does not teach updating (S32) at least an aggregation state, a temperature and said a next time point associated with said given cell, according to said first quantity of energy, wherein an updated time step is determined for the given cell based on a thermal gradient associate with said given cell, such that the updated time step is shorter for a higher thermal gradient, in combination with the remaining limitations. While the prior art teaches individual aspects of the claimed invention, a combination of the teachings of the closest prior art above would not completely teach the limitations of instant Claim 1. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zivcak, Mejia-Parra, Khanzadeh, Scheel, and Hodge to reach the claimed invention, and the Applicant’s claimed invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent Claims 2-11 would be allowable for depending from independent Claim 1.
Independent Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and would be allowable for the same reasons. Dependent Claims 13 and 15-16 would be allowable for depending form independent Claim 12.
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 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
Prosecution Insights