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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/29/2025.
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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites “the multimode fiber”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. This should read “a multimode fiber.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayramian (US 20200198060 A1).
Claim 1. Bayramian discloses an additive manufacturing system (additive manufacturing system 199A, Fig. 1A), comprising:
at least one laser source (pulsed laser source 401, Fig. 4);
a speckle reduction system that receives light from the at least one laser source (beam deflectors, e.g. acousto-optic reflectors 404, can be used to reduce speckling, par. 66 and 71, Fig. 4; where it is understood that the acousto-optic reflectors in 404 are capable of performing the function of speckle reduction disclosed in par. 71);
an optical homogenizer that increases uniformity of laser light received from the speckle reduction system (laser beams can be combined using a beam homogenizer, par. 28); and
an area patterning system that receives laser light directed through the optical homogenizer (combined beam from the homogenizer can be directed to an energy patterning unit, par. 28).
Bayramian does not explicitly disclose that the optical homogenizer receives the laser light from the speckle reduction system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to place the optical homogenizer downstream of the speckle reduction system because doing so would have protected the downstream optics from high peak intensities which could cause laser damage (par. 72, Bayramian).
Claim 11. Bayramian discloses the additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing system further comprises a spatial light valve (pixel addressable light valve includes both a liquid crystal module having a polarizing element and a light projection unit providing a two-dimensional input pattern, par. 28).
Claim 12. Bayramian discloses the additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing further comprises a plurality of beam relays for directing lasers against multiple targets (The two-dimensional image focused by the image relay can be sequentially directed toward multiple locations on a powder bed to build a 3D structure, par. 28).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayramian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yacoubian (US 20210356408 A1).
Claim 6. Bayramian does not disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the speckle reduction system includes an actuator to cause displacement of the multimode fiber.
Yacoubian discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein a speckle reduction system moves the multi-mode fiber to remove speckle noise (par. 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bayramian to incorporate the teachings of Yacoubian and actuate the multi-mode fiber. Although the multi-mode fiber is not used for a laser irradiating and melting a powder surface, Yacoubian demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that moving the multi-mode fiber can remove speckle noise (par. 64, Yacoubian).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761