DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 April 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under §§ 112(b), 102, and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under §§ 112(b), 102, and 103 have been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term “Wi-Fi” and “WiMax” (should be “WIMAX”), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, ℠, or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
In ¶ 92 of the as-filed specification, “having has” should be “having.”
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites, first, “capturing a plurality of melt pool shapes,” followed by, “a distribution of melt pool shapes.” It seems clear that the claim is suggesting that the melt pool shapes that would form the distribution would be those of the plurality captured, and therefore, for clarity, the claim should be amended to recite “a distribution of the melt pool shapes.”
The same analysis and remedy seems applicable to claim 12.
Claim 7 recites “displaying the defects,” but given the model of how e.g. claim 5 has been amended, it seems this should be amended to recite “displaying the defective portions.”
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 provides for “a position assembly.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because its meaning is unclear. The Office guesses that this limitation is supposed to refer to either a scanning device, or to a movable powder bed support, but the disclosure is not clear how it should be interpreted. ¶ 25 of the as-filed specification mentions “scanning speeds of scanning devices and the position assembly 118,” but it’s not clear if the position assembly and scanning devices should somehow be equated. Further, the disclosure provides for a “powder bed 134,” but this appears to be the literal bed of powder rather than the support.
Allowable Subject Matter
All of claims 1–15 and 17–20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, as well as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Yang et al. (US Pub. 2021/0311466) is the closest prior art of record. Yang discloses reading an additive build file containing a set of scan paths for a build (¶¶ 36 and 37), creating a transfer function that corresponds to melt pool shapes (¶¶ 41–42), identifying defective portions of the additive part (¶ 44, “part of the build quality can be evaluated based on whether there is too much burn back 402, adequate amount of fusion 404, and/or a lack of fusion 406”) and modifying parameters of the build file in response to the potential defective portions identified (¶ 44, “the parameters can be adjusted automatically to reduce any defects and/or improve the quality of the build to ensure maximum adherence to the original object design (e.g., using a CAD model)”). However, Yang does not disclose creating a transfer function that corresponds to a local melt pool shape at each point of a plurality of points along the scan paths. Yang at most discloses that “the melt pool geometry determiner 915 varies the melt pool geometry (e.g., width and/or depth) based on the additional build settings on a layer-by-layer basis and/or based on the region of the object being fabricated” (¶ 44), and modifying build parameters “for various features of the build (e.g., bulk area, contour area, downskin area, etc.)” (ibid.).
Das et al. (US Pub. 2014/0163717) and Huang (US Pub. 2023/0339185) are also cited as relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights