DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 9/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 9-16 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 1-8 has/have been canceled. Applicant's amendments to the specification have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/30/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 contains the limitation “wherein the shaping path is linear and non-linear.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “wherein the shaping path is linear and non-linear.” Claims 10-16 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassar et al., Sensing defects during directed-energy additive manufacturing of metal parts using optical emissions spectroscopy, 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium; Austin, TX (2014), 6 August 2014 (2014-08-06), XP055312437, previously cited, in view of Ng et al., Porosity formation and gas bubble retention in laser metal deposition, Appl Phys A (2009) 97: 641–649, previously cited, and Poulin et al., Fatigue strength prediction of laser powder bed fusion processed Inconel 625 specimens with intentionally-seeded porosity: Feasibility study, International Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 132 (March 2020) 105394, Available online 25 November 2019.
Regarding claim 9, Nassar teaches “manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V components in which defects were intentionally introduced” (which reads upon “a method for fabricating a poor fusion defect by controlling a Laser Metal Deposition (LMD) process, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; page 278). Nassar teaches “an Optomec LENS MR-7 laser based, directed-energy-deposition system” (which reads upon “a Laser Metal Deposition (LMD) process”, as recited in the instant claim; page 279). Nassar teaches that “a rectangular block, shown in figure 2, with internally-varying hatch spacing was selected for deposition” (which reads upon “obtaining a model, comprising a shaping zone and a defect zone that has a preset defect; performing a layerwise slicing process on the model, wherein for each deposition layer of the defect zone, the preset defect has a maximum dimension a0 in a perpendicular direction, which is perpendicular to a laser scan direction of the LMD process, wherein a0 takes a value within an interval range, the interval range is a variable range of a feature dimension of the poor fusion defect expected to be fabricated, and the feature dimension is a maximum dimension of the poor fusion defect in the perpendicular direction”, as recited in the instant claim; page 280 and FIG. 2a). Nassar teaches that “as shown in figure 3, the spacing between hatches was increased from 0.914 mm at one end of the block to 1.829 mm at the other” (which reads upon “for the shaping zone, performing a shaping process under predetermined shaping process parameters of the LMD process”, as recited in the instant claim; page 281; the portion with a hatch spacing of 0.914 reads on the shaping zone). Nassar teaches that “the laser beam spot size was measured, using a Primes, GmbH FocusMonitor system, to have a second-moment diameter of 1.24 mm at the working distance” (which reads upon “wherein D is a spot diameter of the laser in the deposition layer of the defect zone”, as recited in the instant claim; page 279). Nassar teaches that “hatch spacing was incremented by 0.229 mm every ten millimeters” (which reads upon “for the defect zone, controlling shaping process parameters as follows: for each deposition layer, when a0<D, with respect to the shaping zone, changing a scan pitch between shaping paths and a powder feed rate in the deposition layer, thereby fabricating the poor fusion defect”, as recited in the instant claim; page 281; FIG. 4 shows that a0<D, which is 1.24 mm, as stated above). In Nassar a0 is always less D (page 281; FIG. 4 shows that a0<D, which is 1.24 mm, as stated above). Accordingly, the conditional limitation, for each deposition layer, when a0>D, with respect to the shaping zone, reducing energy input of laser in the deposition layer, thereby prefabricating the poor fusion defect is not reached.
Nassar is silent regarding for the defect prefabricated zone, controlling shaping process parameters as follows: for each deposition layer, when a0<D, with respect to the shaping zone, changing a powder feed rate in the deposition layer.
Ng is similarly concerned with laser metal deposition (page 641 and title). Ng teaches that “it was reported that both lack of fusion and gas porosity tended to decrease with increasing speed and increasing power, as this provides more energy to melt the powder and therefore reduces the likelihood of porosity” (page 641). Ng teaches that “from Table 3, the analysis of variance showed that the significant factors that affected lack of fusion were traverse speed, powder feed rate, and track overlap” (page 645). Ng teaches that “as shown in Fig. 6, the lack of fusion in the laser deposits was found to be mainly attributed by the traversing speed, powder feed rate, and track overlap” (page 645). Ng teaches that “for the range of powder feed rates tested (4 to 8 g/min), the increase in powder feed rate significantly increased the lack of fusion” (page 645).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nassar to include changing the powder feed rate where lack of fusion defects are desired, as taught by Ng because the increase in powder feed rate significantly increased the lack of fusion.
Nassar teaches that “on each layer, a contour was first deposited along the perimeter of the part, followed by hatches” (page 281). Modified Nassar is silent regarding wherein the shaping path is linear and non-linear.
Poulin is similarly concerned with laser powder bed fusion with intentionally-seeded porosity (title). Poulin teaches that “Inconel 625 fatigue testing specimens with different levels of intentionally-seeded porosity in their gauge section (≤0.1, 0.3, 0.9 and 2.7%) were manufactured by laser powder bed fusion and subjected to stress relief annealing” (which reads upon “method for fabricating a poor fusion defect by controlling a Laser Metal Deposition (LMD) process”, as recited in the instant claim; page 1). Poulin teaches that “the methodology used to build, characterize and mechanically test LPBF specimens with various levels of intentionally-seeded porosity” (page 3; intentionally-seeded porosity reads on preset defects). Poulin teaches that “the build was conducted under argon protective atmosphere, using an EOSINT M280 system equipped with a 400 W Yttrium laser” (page 3; EOSINT M280 system equipped with a 400 W Yttrium laser has a laser spot size (D) of 100 – 500 µm, typically 100 µm). Poulin teaches that “48 blanks were manufactured with four different levels of porosity generated in their central (gauge) part extending from 5 mm below to 5 mm above the center line; the end parts of the blanks were built with the highest possible level of density (≥99.9%)” (page 3). Poulin teaches that for the P2 and P3 samples, the Max size (a0) is 900 µm and 1400 µm, respectively (which reads upon “when a0>D”, as recited in the instant claim; page 6, Table 3). Poulin teaches that for the P2 and P3 samples, the speed was increased from 960 mm/s to 1680 and 1920, respectively (which reads upon “when a0>D, with respect to the shaping zone, reducing energy input of laser in the deposition layer, thereby fabricating the poor fusion defect; wherein D is a spot diameter of the laser in the deposition layer of the defect zone”, as recited in the instant claim; page 4, Table 2; increasing the laser speed decreases the energy input per unit area). Poulin Fig. 2(b) shows that the blanks are cylindrical (which reads upon “wherein the shaping path is linear and non-linear”, as recited in the instant claim; page 4; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, as taught by Nassar, it is customary to begin each layer by scanning along the perimeter; here the perimeter is a circle, which is non-liner, then to fill in with a raster pattern, which is linear). Poulin teaches “a CNC lathe was used to machine fatigue testing specimens with 6 mm-diameter, 12 mm-long gauge sections and 12 mm-diameter, 48 mm-blend radius grip sections, in compliance with ASTM E466 standard” (page 3, see also Fig. 3(a)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the rectangular blanks of Nassar with cylindrical blanks, as taught by Poulin to create blanks which can be studied using ASTM E466 standard for fatigue testing. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nassar to increase the scan speed, thus reducing the energy input, when larger porosity is desired, as taught by Poulin to create samples with larger porosity for study and testing purposes.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nassar teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. W1 and w2 are not used and can be set arbitrarily. “a0” is the feature dimension is a maximum dimension of the poor fusion defect in the perpendicular direction.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nassar teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Nassar teaches that “a rectangular block, shown in figure 2, with internally-varying hatch spacing was selected for deposition” (page 280 and FIG. 2a). Nassar teaches that “as shown in figure 3, the spacing between hatches was increased from 0.914 mm at one end of the block to 1.829 mm at the other” (page 281). Nassar teaches that “a cross-section, taken though the center of the deposit, perpendicular to the hatching vectors (figure 4), revealed internal lack-of-fusion defects between hatches spaced at and above 1.6 mm apart” (page 282).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Nassar teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Nassar teaches that “the laser beam spot size was measured, using a Primes, GmbH FocusMonitor system, to have a second-moment diameter of 1.24 mm at the working distance” (page 279; D = 1.24 mm). 20 % of D is 0.25 mm. 80% of D is 0.99 mm. Nassar teaches that “as shown in figure 3, the spacing between hatches was increased from 0.914 mm at one end of the block to 1.829 mm at the other” (page 281). 0.914 is between 20% and 80% of D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nassar to include changing the powder feed rate where lack of fusion defects are desired, as taught by Ng because the increase in powder feed rate significantly increased the lack of fusion.
Regarding claim 15, modified Nassar teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. In Nassar a0 is always less D (page 281; FIG. 4 shows that a0<D, which is 1.24 mm, as stated above). Accordingly, the conditional limitation is not reached. The Examiner notes that Ng teaches that “it was reported that both lack of fusion and gas porosity tended to decrease with increasing speed and increasing power, as this provides more energy to melt the powder and therefore reduces the likelihood of porosity” (page 641). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nassar to include changing the laser power where lack of fusion defects are desired, as taught by Ng because decreasing the laser power is understood to increase the lack of fusion.
Regarding claim 16, modified Nassar teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Nassar teaches that “additive manufacturing experiments were conducted on an Optomec LENS MR-7 laser-based, directed-energy-deposition system” (page 279; Optomec LENS MR-7 reads on synchronous powder feeding). Nassar teaches “four, radially-symmetrically powder-delivery nozzles” (page 279).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassar et al., Sensing defects during directed-energy additive manufacturing of metal parts using optical emissions spectroscopy, 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium; Austin, TX (2014), 6 August 2014 (2014-08-06), XP055312437, previously cited, Ng et al., Porosity formation and gas bubble retention in laser metal deposition, Appl Phys A (2009) 97: 641–649, previously cited, and Poulin et al., Fatigue strength prediction of laser powder bed fusion processed Inconel 625 specimens with intentionally-seeded porosity: Feasibility study, International Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 132 (March 2020) 105394, Available online 25 November 2019, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shim et al., Effect of layer thickness setting on deposition characteristics in direct energy deposition (DED) process, Optics & Laser Technology 86 (2016) 69–78, previously cited.
Regarding claim 14, Nassar teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Nassar teaches that “the block was built-up using a total of 71 layers spaced 0.173 mm apart” (which reads upon “t0=100-200 µm; wherein t0 is the layer thickness”, as recited in the instant claim; page 280; 0.173 mm is 173 µm). Ng teaches that the laser power was tested at values of 400, 550, 700, 850, and 1000 W (which reads upon “P0=600-1000W ; wherein P0 is a laser power”, as recited in the instant claim; page 643 and Table 2). Nassar teaches that “the laser beam spot size was measured, using a Primes, GmbH FocusMonitor system, to have a second-moment diameter of 1.24 mm at the working distance” (page 279, which is above the claimed range).
Modified Nassar is silent regarding D=0.8-1 mm.
Shim is similarly concerned with laser Direct energy deposition (DED) technology (page 69). Shim teaches that “as Fig. 2(a) and (c) show, it is clear that the laser power, scan speed, and powder feed rate all play significant roles in the deposited geometry” (page 72) Shim teaches that “in a given period of time, the energy must provide enough heat to melt a given volume of the substrate, as well as the delivering powder stream, and that this will be determined not only by the laser power but also the operating head scanning speed and the laser spot size.” (page 72) Shim teaches that “for this reason, two combined parameters, the specific energy per unit spot diameter (E) and the powder feed density (F), are needed to analyze the influence of these three parameters” (page 72) Shim teaches that “the effective energy is defined as the parameter that provides a measure of the energy delivered to the process by the laser” (page 72) Shim teaches that “the beam spot diameter is 1.0 mm with a top-hat intensity distribution” (which reads upon “D=0.8-1 mm”, as recited in the instant claim; page 70)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the 1.24 mm spot of Nassar, where poor fusion defects are desired, with a 1 mm spot, as taught by Shim to decrease the energy delivered to the process by the laser in those areas, thus increasing poor fusion defects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Nassar does not teach "variable laser power and feed rate" as claimed (remarks, page 10). This is not found convincing because Nassar is not relied upon to teach a variable feed rate, rather, Ng provides this teaching, as stated above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that as can be seen Fig 3 of Nassar (reproduced below right picture), it uses a linear scan to deposit layers (remarks, page 10). Applicant further argues that independent claim is amended to include "the shaping path is linear and non- linear" and as explained earlier, Nassar does not teach any non-linear shaping path (remarks, page 11). This is not found convincing because Nassar is not relied upon to teach a variable feed rate, rather, Poulin provides this teaching, as stated above.
Applicant argues that part formed in Nassar has no relevance to actual AM parts and can hardly be used as an "AM standard block, defect sample, or defect part with artificial defects", whereas the model obtained by the method of claim 1 simulates AM parts and can be used as such (remarks, page 13). This is not found convincing because Nassar teaches “manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V components in which defects were intentionally introduced” (abstract; Ti-6Al-4V components in which defects were intentionally introduced are defect samples). Applicant further argues that the scanning path planning in Nassar is identical across all layers; in contrast, AM parts generally have rotation angles between layers to ensure forming quality (remarks, page 8). Additionally, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., AM standard block, defect sample, or defect part with artificial defects; rotation angles between layers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the outstanding Office Action rejects Applicant's claimed limitation "for each deposition layer, when a0>D, with respect to the shaping zone, reducing energy input of laser in the deposition laver, thereby fabricating the poor fusion defect" based on the proposition that the Ng teaches the above feature (remarks, page 14, citing to NFOA page 8, first paragraph). This is not found convincing because the instant limitation was not rejected based on the teaching of Ng found in NFOA page 8, first paragraph, rather the instant limitation is conditional, and was not reached as stated on page 7 of the NFOA. The Examiner notes that while the rejection is maintained as conditional and not reached, the new reference Poulin does teach this limitation. A secondary rejection of the limitation based on Poulin is stated above, as a courtesy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Technical Description EOSINT M 280, December 2010, https://webbuilder5.asiannet.com/ftp/2684/TD_M280_en_2011-03-29.pdf, last accessed November 6, 2025. EOS teaches that the EOSINT M280 system equipped with a 400 W Yttrium laser has a laser spot size (D) of 100 – 500 µm.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733