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/ Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant asserts that the Office is required to identify a special technical feature” unique to each alleged Species” and that the Examiner’s reliance on the same combination of references to reject the independent claims establishes that there is no special technical feature distinguishing Group I from Group II. Applicants’ arguments are not consistent with the applicable standard for unity of invention.
Under in 37 CFR 1.475(a) and PCT Rule 13.2, unity of invention requires a technical relationship among the claimed invention involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The “special technical feature” is a technical feature that defines a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Thus, the relevant inquiry is not whether each group necessarily has a special technical feature that is entirely unique to that group, but whether the groups share the same or corresponding special technical feature that provide the requisite contribution over the prior art.
In the present case, the technical features common to Groups I and II do not constitute a special technical feature. In particular, Group II, claims 10-12, recites determining the radiation intensity using the method of claim 1, but the features of the method of claim 1 relied upon as the common technical relationship are taught by Gold as previously discussed in the Restriction Requirement. Accordingly, those common features do not define a contribution over the prior art and therefore do not constitute a special technical feature for purposes, of PCT Rule 13.2.
Once the common features are considered in view of prior art, Group I, claim(s) 1-9, drawn to A method for determining a radiation intensity and/or a wavelength of a process light and Group II, claim(s) 10-12, drawn to another method for determining process deviations of a melting process, directed to “providing a target value for a process light of a melt pool, wherein the target value depends on a radiation intensity determined using a method as claimed in claim 1” and also further recites additional feature “detecting a radiation intensity emitted by the melt pool and/or a wavelength of the process light as an actual value; and comparing the target value with the actual value in order to detect process deviation”. These features do not involve the same or corresponding special technical features that provide a single general inventive concept.
Accordingly, Groups I and II lack unity of invention, and the requirement for election is maintained.
As such, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are examined in this office action.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2022, 07/27/2023 and 06/13/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, "the melt pool" lacks antecedent basis but does not render the claim indefinite. The term "the melt pool" should be "a melt pool".
. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 recites the limitation “the process light can be generated by irradiating a metal material with an energy beam along a path” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited generation of the process light by irradiating is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional capacity. The use of “can” introduces uncertainty as to the scope of the claim.
Similarly, the limitation “the energy beam can be moved in accordance with a power profile along the path” recited in lines 3-4, claim 1 is rejected by the same reason as discussed above because the use of “can” introduces uncertainty as to the scope of the claim. It is suggested to amend the above limitations to remove “can” in the claim languages.
Claim 4, lines 2-3, the term “the workpiece” is recite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear if the term “the workpiece” refers to “the metal material” previously recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gold (US 20200147868A1)
Regarding claim 1, Gold discloses
A method for determining a radiation intensity and/or a wavelength of a process light (see para.0025, 0041, 0043, 0080), wherein the melt pool (176, see fig.2) underlying the process light (120) can be generated by irradiating a metal material (142/172, see fig.2) with an energy beam (122) along at least one path (laser path, see figs.1-2), wherein the energy beam (122) can be moved in accordance with a power profile (laser power, see para.0072) along the path (see para.0056: "energy source 120 to move focal point 174 from first point 252 to second point 254 along commanded tool path 250 ), the method comprising:
providing the power profile (laser power, see para.0072 and fig.3, step 340) for a section of the path (the path of energy beam 122, see fig.2 and para.0043) as an input variable for a machine learning model (training data set, see para.0072),
training the model (training data set, see para.0072-0075) using historical and/or synthetic power profiles (See fig.3 and para.0072) and associated historical or synthetic radiation intensities and/or wavelengths of the process light for the metal material (See para.0025, 0041, 0072, 0075)
and determining the radiation intensity and/or the wavelength of the process light as an output variable of the model (see para.0080: “controller 220 may be configured for adjusting an incidence angle of the energy source 120, the intensity of energy beam 122”, 0076 and fig.3).
Regarding claim 2, Gold further discloses providing for the model a distance history for the section as an input variable (see para.0055: “two points may be considered to be within a “particular region” for the purposes of determining time lag if located within a predetermined distance of each other”); wherein the distance history describes a distance between the section and the position at which the radiation intensity and/or the wavelength of the process light is to be determined (See para.0055: “all locations within the part and the powder bed that are within a specified distance from a focal point of the energy source” and para.0043: “On-axis sensor 202 can measure any suitable parameter of the filtered, reflected beam, such as intensity, frequency, wavelength”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of Ong (US 20200331209 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Gold discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except providing a mass profile as an input variable for the model for the section; wherein the mass profile describes a mass of the material for each point on section.
Ong discloses a method for additive manufacturing, comprising:
providing a mass profile as an input variable for the model for the section (See para. 0102); wherein the mass profile describes a mass of the material for each point on section (See para. 0102: “, the thermodynamic model can include … masses, … of the objects within the system 100 “).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Gold to add the step of “providing a mass profile as an input variable for the model for the section; wherein the mass profile describes a mass of the material for each point on section” as taught by Ong in order to “adjust the energy input to the system” (See para.0102 of Ong).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of Mathews (US 20180185959 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Gold discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except providing a background temperature as an input variable for the model which the material or the workpiece has outside the melt pool.
Mathews discloses an additive manufacturing system, comprising:
providing a background temperature as an input variable for the model which the material or the workpiece has outside the melt pool (see para.0069: “Computing device 24 compares, in real-time, the quantity of electromagnetic radiation 62 emitted by and/or a temperature of build material 21 to the calibration model of additive manufacturing system 210 to determine …”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Gold to add the step of “providing a background temperature as an input variable for the model which the material or the workpiece has outside the melt pool” as taught by Mathews, in order to “adjust one or more build parameters in real-time to adjust or control the size of the melt pool” (See para.0047 of Mathews).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of Ay US20180147062A1
Regarding claim 5, Gold discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the model has a topology having coefficients of regression.
Ay discloses Systems and methods for creating a geometric design definition for 3D models designed to fit physical or digital template objects, comprising:
the model has a topology having coefficients of regression (See para.0188).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the model of Gold to have the topology having coefficients of regression as taught by Ay, for “improving the geometric design definition”, enabling more precise and customizable design (See para.0188 of Ay).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of Iorio US 20160101570 A1
Regarding claim 6, Gold discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except providing a volume element that is representative for the section as an input variable for the model.
Iorio discloses three dimensional (3D) modeling programs, such as computer-aided design (CAD) applications used with 3D printing, comprising:
providing a volume element that is representative for the section as an input variable for the model (See abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Gold to add the step of “providing a volume element that is representative for the section as an input variable for the model” as taught by Iorio. Doing so allows the method can better account for geometry–process–property relationships in additive manufacturing, leading to more robust and accurate predictions.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of Baker US 20200368815 A1
Regarding claim 7, Gold discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except comprising providing as an input variable for the model a workpiece geometry representative for the section.
Baker discloses a method for use in additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional workpiece, comprising:
providing as an input variable for the model a workpiece geometry representative for the section (See para.0041: “the input vector includes aspects of the geometry 113 of current workpiece 30 to be manufactured from the CAD model 32 for the current workpiece 30”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Gold to add the step of “providing as an input variable for the model a workpiece geometry representative for the section” as taught by Baker. Doing so allows the model to learn the relationship between section shape and process outcomes, enabling more accurate predictions and optimizations in additive manufacturing.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of EDELHÄUSER US 20200198010 A1
Regarding claim 8, Gold discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the section is selected so that at least one interruption of the energy beam is included.
EDELHÄUSER discloses a method for additive production of a component layer of a component, comprising:
the section is selected so that at least one interruption of the energy beam is included (See para.0053: “since an irradiation procedure otherwise either would proceed severely slowed or would have to be interrupted each time a solidifying region 16 is completely solidified.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Gold to have “the section is selected so that at least one interruption of the energy beam is included” as taught by EDELHÄUSER. Doing so allows to control of energy deposition and improves part quality.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of Roesgen US 20220193772 A1
Regarding claim 9, Gold discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the section is selected in dependence upon a workpiece geometry.
Roesgen discloses a calibration method and an apparatus, comprising:
the section is selected in dependence upon a workpiece geometry (See para.003: “laser radiation in a site selective manner in dependence on the desired geometry of the workpiece that is to be produced”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Gold to have the section is selected in dependence upon a workpiece geometry as taught by Roesgen so that system where the laser section is dynamically selected based on the workpiece’s shape and features, improving print quality and reducing manual tuning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20190143412A1 discloses the 3D printer comprises a computer model that is based on a requested 3D object. The computer model may comprise 3D printing instructions of the requested 3D object. The computer model may comprise a physical model that corresponds to the behavior of the material (e.g., pre-transformed and/or transformed material) during the 3D printing, which at least part of the material forms the 3D object (See para.0172).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights