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 8 October 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. Accordingly, the Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103, pages 7-10 filed 8 October 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 8 October 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 17, 19, 21, 26, and 29-30 have been amended.
Claims 17, 19, 21-26, and 28-33 are pending.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 17-33, “solidifying device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitation is “configured to emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation on the surface level to solidify a selective part of a layer of the powdered material of the bath of powdered material” (claim 17) or “configured to provide a beam of electromagnetic radiation” (claim 26).
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitations includes a “laser device” (page 14).
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 § 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.
Claims 17- 19, 21-24, 26, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehling et al. (US-20190381602-A1, effective filing date of 15 June 2018) in view of Feldmann et al. (US-20180207722-A1).
Regarding claim 17, Roehling teaches an apparatus (additive manufacturing system 10, fig. 1) for producing an object (“part,” para 0036) by additive manufacturing, comprising:
a support (stage 15, fig. 1) configured to position a part of the object (“new layer of powder needs to be deposited,” para 0036) relative to a surface level of the bath of powdered material (“Z direction,” para 0036; surface of powder bed, fig. 1);
a solidifying device (laser 12, fig. 1) configured to emit a beam (beam 16a, figs. 3-5) of electromagnetic radiation on the surface level to solidify (“melt and solidify,” para 0035) a selective part of a layer of the powdered material of the bath of powdered material (“each layer,” para 0035); and
a controller (computer 14, fig. 1) configured to control (para 0036) an energy density of the electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) at the surface level (“a track or path of melted material from the powder bed,” para 0037), by changing a dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044; the claimed “dimension” is construed as the shape of the beam), during solidification of the selective part of the layer of the powdered material of the bath of powdered material (the grains in the powder are “melted,” para 0044, and then solidified, as shown in figs 7A-C), according to a position of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (figs. 3-5) such that at a constant output power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“constant beam size, power,” para 0044), the energy density of the electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (para 0040) is maintained constant within a range of 10% along the surface level (“constant…energy density,” para 0044; construed such that the energy density is kept constant and is within the claimed range of 10%).
Roehling, figs. 1, 3-5, and 7A-C
PNG
media_image1.png
1131
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1251
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Roehling does not explicitly disclose a process chamber configured to receive a bath of powdered material configured to be solidified by exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Feldmann teaches a process chamber (chamber 2, fig. 1) configured to receive a bath of powdered material (powder bed 4, fig. 1) configured to be solidified by exposure to electromagnetic radiation (“Controlled energy delivery from the laser source allows for selective fusion within the powder layer upon localized heating and subsequent cooling,” para 0049).
Feldmann, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
649
877
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Roehling to include, a process chamber configured to receive a bath of powdered material configured to be solidified by exposure to electromagnetic radiation, in view of the teachings of Feldmann, by enclosing the powder bed 18, substrate 20, and motion stage 15, as taught by Roehling, inside a chamber, as taught by Feldmann, in order to prevent dust from entering the powder bed, which can cause contamination or defects in the manufactured part.
Regarding claim 19, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to maintain the energy density of the electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (para 0040) constant within a range of 3%, along the surface level (“constant…energy density,” para 0044; construed such that the energy density is kept constant and is within the claimed range of 3%).
Regarding claim 21, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to control the energy density of the electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) in a volume of the bath of powdered material (“penetration depths,” para 0044; the circular and elliptical beam spots melt an area and depth, which are construed as melting a volume), by controlling changing the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044), according to the position of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (position of circular and elliptical beams at the surface, figs. 3-5) such that at the constant output power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“constant beam size, power,” para 0044), the energy density in the volume of the bath of powdered material of the electromagnetic radiation is maintained constant along the surface level within the range of 10% (“constant…energy density,” para 0044; construed such that the energy density is kept constant and is within the claimed range of 10%), wherein the energy density at any position in the volume is larger than zero (the laser beam applies energy to “melt” the powder, para 0044; construed such that the energy density is greater than zero at any position within the volume of the powder that is melted).
Regarding claim 22, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to control (para 0036) the energy density of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) in the volume of the bath of powdered material (para 0044) by changing at least one of: a thickness of the layer of the powdered material of the bath of powdered material (not explicitly disclosed); and a speed of moving the beam of electromagnetic radiation along the surface level (“the computer 14 may also simultaneously control and vary … the scan speed and the shaping of the beam 12 a, as needed, in real time, while melting the powder bed,” para 0036).
Regarding claim 23, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to change the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044) by changing at least one of: a focus setting of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (not explicitly disclosed); a beam shape of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (para 0044; figs. 3-5); and an expansion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (the beam is construed as expanding along the major axis of the ellipse, as it changes from circular to elliptical, figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 24, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to control the power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (“the computer 14 may control application of the power generated by the laser 12 (i.e., the beam power),” para 0036) by changing at least one of: a duty cycle of the solidifying device (not explicitly disclosed); and an output power of the solidifying device (“The computer 14 may also simultaneously control and vary each of the beam power,” para 0036).
Regarding claim 26, Roehling teaches a method (“method,” title) for producing an object (“part,” para 0036) by additive manufacturing (additive manufacturing system 10, fig. 1), comprising the steps of:
receiving a bath of powdered material (“powder bed of powder particles,” para 0010; “powder bed,” fig. 1; construed such that the powder bed receives powder), wherein a surface level of the bath of powdered material defines an object working area (“a track or path of melted material from the powder bed 18,” para 0037; the paths of the beams in figs. 3-5 are construed as the claimed “object working area”):
solidifying (“melt and solidify,” para 0035), by a solidifying device (laser 12, fig. 1) configured to provide a beam (beam 16a, figs. 3-5) of electromagnetic radiation, a selective part of a layer of powdered material (“each layer,” para 0035) of the bath of powdered material by the beam of electromagnetic radiation; and
controlling (para 0036), by a controller (computer 14, fig. 1), during the step of solidifying, an energy density of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) at the surface level (“a track or path of melted material from the powder bed,” para 0037), by changing a dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044; the claimed “dimension” is construed as the shape of the beam), according to a position of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (figs. 3-5) such that at a constant output power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“constant beam size, power,” para 0044), the energy density of the electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (para 0040) is maintained constant within a range of 10% along the surface level (“constant…energy density,” para 0044; construed such that the energy density is kept constant and is within the claimed range of 10%).
Roehling does not explicitly disclose receiving, in a process chamber, a bath of powdered material.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Feldmann teaches receiving (para 0046), in a process chamber (chamber 2, fig. 1), a bath of powdered material (powder bed 4, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Roehling to include, receiving, in a process chamber, a bath of powdered material, in view of the teachings of Feldmann, by enclosing the powder bed 18, substrate 20, and motion stage 15, as taught by Roehling, inside a chamber, as taught by Feldmann, in order to prevent dust from entering the powder bed, which can cause contamination or defects in the manufactured part.
Regarding claim 28, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to maintain the energy density at the surface level (para 0040) constant along the surface level (“constant…energy density,” para 0044); and wherein, during the step of controlling (para 0036), the controller maintains the energy density at the surface level constant along the surface level (“constant…energy density,” para 0044).
Regarding claim 29, Roehling teaches wherein: the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to control (para 0036) the energy density of the electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) in a volume of the bath of powdered material (“penetration depths,” para 0044; the circular and elliptical beam spots melt an area and depth, which are construed as melting a volume), by changing the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044), according to the position of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (position of circular and elliptical beams at the surface, figs. 3-5) such that at the constant output power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“constant beam size, power,” para 0044), the energy density in the volume of the bath of powdered material of the electromagnetic radiation is maintained constant within the range of 10%, along the surface level (“constant…energy density,” para 0044; construed such that the energy density is kept constant and is within the claimed range of 10%);
the energy density at any position in the volume is larger than zero (the laser beam applies energy to “melt” the powder, para 0044; construed such that the energy density is greater than zero at any position within the volume of the powder that is melted); and
during the step of controlling (para 0036), the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) controls the energy density of the electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) in the volume of the bath of powdered material (para 0044; figs. 3-5), by changing the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044), according to the position of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (position of circular and elliptical beams at the surface, figs. 3-5) such that at the constant output power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“constant beam size, power,” para 0044), the energy density in the volume of the bath of powdered material of the electromagnetic radiation is maintained constant within the range of 10%, along the surface level (“constant…energy density,” para 0044; construed such that the energy density is kept constant and is within the claimed range of 10%).
Regarding claim 30, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to control (para 0036) the energy density of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) in the volume of the bath of powdered material (para 0044) by changing at least one of:
a thickness of the layer of the powdered material (not explicitly disclosed); and
a speed of moving the beam of electromagnetic radiation along the surface level (“the computer 14 may also simultaneously control and vary … the scan speed and the shaping of the beam 12 a, as needed, in real time, while melting the powder bed,” para 0036);
and wherein during the step of controlling (para 0036), the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) controls the energy density of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (“Energy Density,” figs. 2A.a-b) in the volume of the bath of powdered material (para 0044) by changing at least one of:
the thickness of the layer of the powdered material (not explicitly disclosed); and
the speed of moving the beam of electromagnetic radiation along the surface level (“the computer 14 may also simultaneously control and vary … the scan speed and the shaping of the beam 12 a, as needed, in real time, while melting the powder bed,” para 0036).
Regarding claim 31, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to control (para 0036) the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044) by changing at least one of:
a focus setting of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (not explicitly disclosed);
a beam shape of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (para 0044; figs. 3-5); and
an expansion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (the beam is construed as expanding along the major axis of the ellipse, as it changes from circular to elliptical, figs. 3-5); and
wherein during the step of controlling (para 0036), the control device (computer 14, fig. 1) controls the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (in figs. 7A-C, “the beam shape is varied,” para 0044) by changing at least one of:
the focus setting of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (not explicitly disclosed);
the beam shape of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (para 0044; figs. 3-5); and
the expansion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (the beam is construed as expanding along the major axis of the ellipse, as it changes from circular to elliptical, figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 32, Roehling teaches wherein the controller (computer 14, fig. 1) is configured to control (para 0036) the power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (“the computer 14 may control application of the power generated by the laser 12 (i.e., the beam power),” para 0036) by controlling at least one of:
a duty cycle of the solidifying device (not explicitly disclosed); and
an output power of the solidifying device (“The computer 14 may also simultaneously control and vary each of the beam power,” para 0036); and
wherein during the step of controlling (para 0036), the controller controls the power of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level (para 0036) by controlling at least one of:
the duty cycle of the solidifying device (not explicitly disclosed); and
the output power of the solidifying device (“The computer 14 may also simultaneously control and vary each of the beam power,” para 0036).
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehling et al. (US-20190381602-A1, effective filing date of 15 June 2018) in view of Feldmann et al. (US-20180207722-A1) as applied to claims 17 and 26 above and further in view of Diaz et al. (US-20170239724-A1).
Regarding claim 25, Roehling teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to change a hatch distance at the surface level of the beam of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Diaz teaches wherein the controller (“control of a computer,” para 0083) is configured to change a hatch distance (distances d1, d2, d3, and d4, figs. 7A-7B; “modifying the orientation and/or the length of segments,” para 0070) at the surface level (fused portion 11A, fig. 1) of the beam (laser beam 2, fig. 1) of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (vertical dimension of the scanning path, figs. 7A-7B).
Diaz, fig. 7
PNG
media_image4.png
224
368
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Roehling to include, wherein the controller is configured to change a hatch distance at the surface level of the beam of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation, in view of the teachings of Diaz, by having the laser beam, as taught by Roehling, follow the modified symmetric scanning patterns in figs. 7A and 7B, as taught by Diaz, because when switching between scanning paths, modifying the power of the beam during scanning by switching the power off is not always possible or desirable, but by keeping the beam fully in the on state and at a constant power, the additive manufacturing process can take full advantage of the available power by optimizing the hatch spacing (Diaz, paras 0088 and 0096; Roehling, para 0004).
Regarding claim 33, Roehling teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to change a hatch distance at the surface level of the beam of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the controller changes the hatch distance at the surface level of the beam of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Diaz teaches wherein the controller (“control of a computer,” para 0083) is configured to control a hatch distance (distances d1, d2, d3, and d4, figs. 7A-7B; para 0137) at the surface level (fused portion 11A, fig. 1) of the beam (laser beam 2, fig. 1) of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (vertical dimension of the scanning path, figs. 7A-7B) and wherein the controller (“control of a computer,” para 0083) changes the hatch distance (distances d1, d2, d3, and d4, figs. 7A-7B; “modifying the orientation and/or the length of segments,” para 0070) at the surface level (fused portion 11A, fig. 1) of the beam (laser beam 2, fig. 1) of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (vertical dimension of the scanning path, figs. 7A-7B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Roehling to include, wherein the controller is configured to control a hatch distance at the surface level of the beam of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the controller changes the hatch distance at the surface level of the beam of electromagnetic radiation according to the dimension of the beam of electromagnetic radiation, in view of the teachings of Diaz, by having the laser beam, as taught by Roehling, follow the modified symmetric scanning patterns in figs. 7A and 7B, as taught by Diaz, because when switching between scanning paths, modifying the power of the beam during scanning by switching the power off is not always possible or desirable, but by keeping the fully in the on state and at a constant power, the additive manufacturing process can take full advantage of the available power by optimizing the hatch spacing (Diaz, paras 0088 and 0096; Roehling, para 0004).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 8 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
III. Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
The examiner agrees with the Applicant’s description of Roehling (US20190381602A1) at the bottom of page 8. Specifically, Roehling teaches using three different beams in figs. 7A-7C—a circular beam in fig. 7A (shown also in fig. 5), a longitudinal elliptical beam in fig. 7B (shown also in fig. 3), and a transverse-elliptical beam in fig. 7C (shown also in fig. 4). Although the beam changes shape, Roehling teaches “constant beam size, power and energy density.” Thus, the only aspect of the beam that changes is the shape of the beam—the cross-sectional area of the beam, the power of the beam, and the energy density of the beam remain constant.
The examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that “there is no indication in paragraph [0044] that the dimensions of the beam are changed.” Instead, as shown in figs. 3-5, the dimensions of the beam change across each of the axes:
PNG
media_image5.png
2265
1659
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Changing lengths across horizontal and vertical dimension for the beam appears to be the same type of dimensional change that is disclosed in the Specification of the Instant Application. Specifically, the Specification discloses the following:
“Dimension d1 corresponds to the size of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level L in a first direction X, and d2 correspond to the size of the beam of electromagnetic radiation at the surface level L in a second direction Y. The first direction X and the second direction Y are mutually perpendicular and directed parallel to the surface level L.”
Similar to how Roehling teaches changing the dimensions of the beam across the horizontal and vertical axes, the Specification in the Instant Application also discloses changes the dimensions of the beam along the X (horizontal) and Y (vertical) axes.
On page 9, the Applicant states that Roehling only teaches using an elliptical beam shape in paragraph 0044. However, in paragraph 0044, Roehling teaches the following:
“FIG. 7A melted by C-M (diameter=187 μm), FIG. 7B melted by LE-M (longitudinal-elliptical, 351 μm×95 μm), and FIG. 7C melted by TE-M (transverse-elliptical, 95 μm×351 μm).”
Figure 7A correlates with the “circular medium-sized” (C-M) beam that is shown in fig. 5. This circular beam does not have an elliptical shape.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/16/2025
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights