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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12, 14, 16, and 20-22 are examined in this office action as claims 13 and 17 are directed to a withdrawn invention, claims 20-22 are new, claims 15 and 18-19 were canceled, and claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12, and 14 were amended in the reply dated 10/17/26.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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 1-12, 14, 16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “aselective heating of a region of a layer composed of a pulverulent material; selective irradiation of a portion of the region with a first energy beam and a second energy beam” in lines 3-5. New claim 20 contains a similar recitation of “aselective heating of a region of a layer composed of a pulverulent material to a first temperature; selective irradiation of a portion of the region with a first energy beam and a second energy beam”. Regarding the claimed subject matter of “aselective heating” being associated with “region” and “selective irradiation” being associated with a “portion”, the specification only recites “region” on pg. 11, lines 30-32 in relation to the coating device providing pulverulent material to “the region of a construction zone” and on pg. 13, lines 3-4 where “the layer is locally melted and solidified in the region of the construction zone”. Thus, the only use of region in conjunction with heating is with the selective melting and solidifying and not with the aselective heating. Likewise, “portion” in the original claims and specification is associated with the aselective heating rather than the selective irradiation. On pg. 5, lines 13-16 recites “method furthermore comprises the aselective, non-selective, delocalized or global irradiation or heating of the layer, wherein a large portion, for example a majority or large part or the entire production surface, of the layer is heated“. While applicant argues that Fig. 2 demonstrates support for “region” and “portion” applicant has annotated this figure in a way that does not comport with the disclosure as filed as noted above. Therefore, the specification does not describe the claimed subject matter of “region” and “portion” in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-12, 14, 16, and 21-22 are rejected as they depend from claims 1 and 20 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 22 is new and recites “wherein the intermediate temperature is between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material”. There is no recitation of an intermediate temperature in the specification, much less where it is between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material. While it is agreed with applicant’s arguments that a intermediate temperature must exist between the first temperature caused by the aselective heating and the second temperature of the core of the portion caused by the first energy beam as the second energy beam has a lower radiation intensity than the first energy beam (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, annotated Fig. 2), this does not mean that the inherent intermediate temperature would be between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material. While the specification discloses that the aselective heating is effected at a temperature between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material (Applicant’s specification, pg. 15, line 35 – pg. 16, line 3), this intermediate temperature would necessarily be higher than this range as the second energy beam provides energy to heat the pulverant material. Therefore, the specification does not describe the claimed subject matter of “the intermediate temperature is between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material” in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 14, and 20-22 are 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 3 recites the limitation “the further laser beam heats the annular ring-shape of the core to a temperature of above 500°C” in the last two lines of the claim. While there is a previous recitation of an annular ring-shape in claims 1 and 2, this is of the portion that surrounds the core. There is no previous recitation of an annular ring-shape of the core and therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is also rejected as it also recites “the annular ring-shape” and it is unclear whether this refers to the annular ring-shape of the portion that surrounds the core, whether this refers to the annular ring shape of the core, or some other meaning.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the second energy beam is configured to have a lower radiation intensity than the first energy beam and is configured to heat the annular ring-shape to an intermediate temperature” in the last four lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the annular ring-shape” in the claim. While there are recitations of annular ring-shape in claims 1-3 and 14, as claim 20 is an independent claim, there is no previous recitation of an annular ring shape to provide antecedent basis in this instance. Claims 21-22 are also rejected as they depend from claim 20 and do not solve the above issue.
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 1-12, 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0193953 A1 of Boswell in view of US 2019/0030603 A1 of Ott and DE 102017213762 A1 (cited on IDS received 11/6/22) with reference to English translation of Haberland.
As to claim 1, Boswell discloses a powder bed additive layer manufacturing apparatus and method (Boswell, paragraph [0004]). Boswell discloses where a fusing laser is focused on the powder layer to form a melt pool and is scanned across the powder layer in a series of fusing scan lines (Boswell, paragraph [0067]), reading upon selective irradiation of apportion of a region of a layer composed of pulverulent material with a first energy beam as by scanning a laser across the powder bed, there is selective irradiation. Boswell also discloses a heating laser beam which is scanned across the bed simultaneously with the fusing laser beam which has a focus spot that is larger than the fusing laser beam (Boswell, paragraph [0068]), reading upon a second energy beam which is different from the first energy beam. Boswell discloses where the fusing laser beam and the heating laser beam generate a focus spot which is circular (Boswell, paragraphs [0048] and [0049]) and Boswell discloses where the fusing laser focus spot is within the heating beam focus spot (Boswell, paragraph [0071] and FIG. 4), reading upon where the second energy beam surrounds the first energy beam in a ring-shape as the heating laser beam is circular i.e. ring shaped.
Boswell discloses heating each layer of fusible powder material prior to and/or during scanning by the fusing energy beam using resistance or induction heating (Boswell, paragraph [0040]), meeting the limitation of aselective heating of a region of a layer composed of a pulverulent material. However, Boswell does not disclose a temperature for heating the powder bed using resistance or induction heating.
Ott relates to the same field of endeavor of selective laser sintering and melting (Ott, paragraph [0004]). Ott teaches heating the raw material to a temperature of at least 500°C for the additive production of the component (Ott, paragraph [0038]), thus encompassing a sintering temperature of the powder, thereby reading upon the claim limitations and meeting the limitation of between 50 and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates. Ott teaches that this improves the structure properties of the finished component especially with regard to γ′ precipitates in the material of the component (Ott, paragraph [0011]).
As Boswell teaches heating the powder material, but does not teach a temperature for heating, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine an appropriate temperature for heating. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate a bed heating temperature of at least 500°C as taught by Ott into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed by Boswell, thereby improves the structure properties of the finished component especially with regard to γ′ precipitates in the material of the component (Ott, paragraph [0011]).
Boswell discloses where the fusing laser beam forms a melt pool (Boswell, paragraph [0012]) while the heating laser beam does not melt the material (Boswell, paragraph [0016]) and Boswell in combination with Ott discloses where a melting laser and a further laser beam are directed at a layer. However, the combination of Boswell and Ott are silent concerning using a common optical unit.
Haberland relates to the same field of endeavor of generative production of a component using a first and second laser beam (Haberland, abstract). Haberland teaches where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter (Haberland, paragraph [0013]), meeting the claim limitations of a common optical unit. Haberland teaches that this allows for a very compact design of the device (Haberland, paragraph [0013]).
As Boswell is silent concerning the optics of its dual laser design, but some optics are necessary to carry out the additive manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine an appropriate way to apply two lasers in an additive manufacturing process. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter as taught by Haberland to the method of additive manufacturing disclosed by the combination of Boswell and Ott, thereby allows for a very compact design of the device (Haberland, paragraph [0013]).
As to claim 2, Boswell discloses where the fusing laser beam forms a melt pool (Boswell, paragraph [0012]) while the heating laser beam does not melt the material (Boswell, paragraph [0016]), thus meeting the claim limitation where the first energy beam comprises a melting laser and the second energy beam comprises a further laser beam having a lower radiation intensity than the melting laser. Boswell discloses where the fusing laser beam and the heating laser beam generate a focus spot which is circular (Boswell, paragraphs [0048] and [0049]) and Boswell discloses where the fusing laser focus spot is within the heating beam focus spot (Boswell, paragraph [0071] and FIG. 4), meeting the claim limitation where the further laser beam is configured to heat the annular ring-shape of the portion that surrounds the core.
As to claim 3, it is not clear what is meant by the annular ring-shape of the core, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring selective heating of a portion of the annular ring-shape to a temperature above 500°C. As Ott teaches heating the raw material to a temperature of at least 500°C for the additive production of the component (Ott, paragraph [0038]), the heating laser beam in Boswell would necessarily selectively heat the layer to a temperature above 500°C, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 4, Ott teaches heating the raw material to a temperature of at least 500°C for the additive production of the component (Ott, paragraph [0038]), meeting the claim limitation of aselective heating between 400 and 500°C. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
As to claim 5, Ott teaches heating the raw material to a temperature of at least 500°C for the additive production of the component (Ott, paragraph [0038]). While neither Boswell nor Ott states that the aselective heating is effected below a sintering temperature of the pulverulent material, this must be the case as if the aselective temperature is above the sintering temperature of the powder, the powder would sinter together into a block and there would not be layer-by-layer selective solidification that is required by powder bed additive manufacturing.
As to claim 6, Boswell discloses using resistance or induction heating to heat the fusible powder material (Boswell, paragraph [0040]). Ott teaches using infrared lamp, laser, and/or an inductive heating system (Ott, paragraph [0057]).
As to claims 7 and 14, the reason for carrying out an active method step does not limit a method claim. Thus, as Boswell discloses heating each layer of fusible powder material prior to and/or during scanning by the fusing energy beam using resistance or induction heating (Boswell, paragraph [0040]), this meets the claim limitation as there is aselective heating. It is also noted that Ott teaches where the heating is a preheating (Ott, paragraph [0057]), meeting the claim limitation where the aselective heating is carried out for the purpose of preheating.
As to claim 8, Boswell discloses heating each layer of fusible powder material during scanning by the fusing energy beam using resistance or induction heating (Boswell, paragraph [0040]), meeting the claim limitation of where the aselective heating is carried out simultaneously with the selective irradiation of the layer.
As to claims 9 and 16, Boswell discloses where the powder material is a nickel based super alloy (Boswell, paragraphs [0044] and [0066]), which meets the claim 9 limitation of a superalloy and encompasses the claim 16 limitation of a ɣ’-hardening nickel-based superalloy. Ott also discloses a ɣ’-hardening nickel- or cobalt-based superalloy (Ott, paragraphs [0026] and [0048]).
As to claim 10, Boswell discloses heat-treated after manufacture e.g. using HIP, annealing or precipitation hardening (Boswell, paragraph [0041]), meeting the claim limitation of thermal after treatment.
As to claims 11 and 12, Boswell discloses where the fusing laser beam forms a melt pool (Boswell, paragraph [0012]) while the heating laser beam does not melt the material (Boswell, paragraph [0016]) and Boswell in combination with Ott discloses where a melting laser and a further laser beam are directed at a layer, see claims 1 and 2 rejections above. However, the combination of Boswell and Ott are silent concerning using a common optical unit nor where the common optical unit is a semi-transparent beam splitter.
Haberland relates to the same field of endeavor of generative production of a component using a first and second laser beam (Haberland, abstract). Haberland teaches where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter (Haberland, paragraph [0013]), meeting the claim limitations of a common optical unit and a semi-transparent beam splitter. Haberland teaches that this allows for a very compact design of the device (Haberland, paragraph [0013]).
As Boswell is silent concerning the optics of its dual laser design, but some optics are necessary to carry out the additive manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine an appropriate way to apply two lasers in an additive manufacturing process. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter as taught by Haberland to the method of additive manufacturing disclosed by the combination of Boswell and Ott, thereby allows for a very compact design of the device (Haberland, paragraph [0013]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0193953 A1 of Boswell in view of DE 102017213762 A1 (cited on IDS received 11/6/22) with reference to English translation of Haberland.
As to claim 20, Boswell discloses a powder bed additive layer manufacturing apparatus and method (Boswell, paragraph [0004]). Boswell discloses heating each layer of fusible powder material prior to and/or during scanning by the fusing energy beam using resistance or induction heating (Boswell, paragraph [0040]), meeting the limitation of aselective heating of a region of a layer composed of a pulverulent material to a first temperature. Boswell discloses where a fusing laser is focused on the powder layer to form a melt pool and is scanned across the powder layer in a series of fusing scan lines (Boswell, paragraph [0067]) and Boswell also discloses a heating laser beam which is scanned across the bed simultaneously with the fusing laser beam which has a focus spot that is larger than the fusing laser beam (Boswell, paragraph [0068]), meeting the claim limitation where selective irradiation of a portion of the region with a first energy beam and a second energy beam. As Boswell discloses where a fusing laser is focused on the powder layer to form a melt pool (Boswell, paragraph [0067]) and Boswell discloses where the fusing laser focus spot is within the heating beam focus spot (Boswell, paragraph [0071] and FIG. 4), this meets the limitation of wherein the first energy beam is configured to heat a core of the portion to a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature as by the fusing laser being withing the heating beam, it is heating a core portion and by disclosing the formation of a melt pool, this means that the temperature achieved by the fusing laser is higher than that achieved by the resistance or induction heating as the powder is still solid at that point. Boswell also discloses a heating laser beam which is scanned across the bed simultaneously with the fusing laser beam which has a focus spot that is larger than the fusing laser beam (Boswell, paragraph [0068]) and Boswell discloses where the heating energy beam provides sufficient energy to heat the material but not to melt it (Boswell, paragraph [0016]), meeting the limitation wherein the second energy beam is configured to have a lower radiation intensity than the first energy beam and is configured to heat to an intermediate temperature that is between the first temperature and the second temperature as by adding energy, it would achieve a temperature between the initial powder bed temperature and the melting temperature achieved by the fusing laser beam.
It is not clear what is meant by “annular ring-shape”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring the material heated between the first and second temperature is in an annular ring-shape. Boswell discloses where the fusing laser beam and the heating laser beam generate a focus spot which is circular (Boswell, paragraphs [0048] and [0049]) and Boswell discloses where the fusing laser focus spot is within the heating beam focus spot (Boswell, paragraph [0071] and FIG. 4), meeting the limitation where a annular ring-shape is the portion heated between the first and second temperature.
Boswell discloses where the fusing laser beam forms a melt pool (Boswell, paragraph [0012]) while the heating laser beam does not melt the material (Boswell, paragraph [0016]) and thus is disclosing two laser beams, but Boswell is silent concerning using a common optical unit.
Haberland relates to the same field of endeavor of generative production of a component using a first and second laser beam (Haberland, abstract). Haberland teaches where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter (Haberland, paragraph [0013]), meeting the claim limitations of a common optical unit. Haberland teaches that this allows for a very compact design of the device (Haberland, paragraph [0013]).
As Boswell is silent concerning the optics of its dual laser design, but some optics are necessary to carry out the additive manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine an appropriate way to apply two lasers in an additive manufacturing process. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter as taught by Haberland to the method of additive manufacturing disclosed by the combination of Boswell, thereby allows for a very compact design of the device (Haberland, paragraph [0013]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0193953 A1 of Boswell and DE 102017213762 A1 (cited on IDS received 11/6/22) with reference to English translation of Haberland as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US 2019/0030603 A1 of Ott.
As to claim 21, Boswell discloses where a fusing laser is focused on the powder layer to form a melt pool and is scanned across the powder layer in a series of fusing scan lines (Boswell, paragraph [0067]), meeting the claim limitation of where the second temperature is above a sintering or a solidus temperature of the pulverant material. However, Boswell does not disclose where the first temperature is at least 400°C.
Ott relates to the same field of endeavor of selective laser sintering and melting (Ott, paragraph [0004]). Ott teaches heating the raw material to a temperature of at least 500°C for the additive production of the component (Ott, paragraph [0038]), meeting the limitation of where a first temperature is at least 400°C. Ott teaches that this improves the structure properties of the finished component especially with regard to γ′ precipitates in the material of the component (Ott, paragraph [0011]).
As Boswell teaches heating the powder material, but does not teach a temperature for heating, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine an appropriate temperature for heating. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate a bed heating temperature of at least 500°C as taught by Ott into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed by Boswell, thereby improves the structure properties of the finished component especially with regard to γ′ precipitates in the material of the component (Ott, paragraph [0011]).
As to claim 22, Ott teaches heating the raw material to a temperature of at least 500°C for the additive production of the component (Ott, paragraph [0038]) and as the heating laser beam in Boswell would have to heat the powder some amount, this means that the intermediate temperature would overlap the claimed range of between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objection of claim 10, applicant’s amendment to separate “after” from “treatment” cures the previous issue and the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejections, applicant’s cancelation of claim 18 and the amendment to recite selective radiation of the first energy beam cures the previous indefiniteness issues. Further, applicant’s amendment concerning aselective heating cures the other indefiniteness issue. Finally, the deletion of local heating cures the previous issues in claim 3. However, see new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above.
With respect to the support for the amendments to the claims and new claims 20-22, applicant argues that Fig. 2 in combination with paragraphs [0027], [0029], [0054], [0056], and [0063] provide support for these new claims (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7 1st paragraph – pg. 8, 1st paragraph). It is agreed that that since the second energy beam is disclosed as having a lower radiation intensity than the first energy beam and the aselective heating produces a temperature T1 and the temperature produced by the first energy beam is T2, there must be a intermediate temperature between these two disclosed temperatures. However, the use of “region” and “portion” does not have support, see 112(a) rejection above. While applicant has annotated Fig. 2 to show these parts of the powder bed, this does not comport with the disclosure which notes that aselective heating is performed on the portion and region is only used in conjunction with a region of a construction zone. Also, claim 22 lacks support as while there is inherently an intermediate temperature and a disclosure where aselective heating is effected at a temperature between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material, this does not support where the intermediate temperature is in this range. As the intermediate temperature would necessarily have to be higher than the temperature in the aselective heating area, it could not be this same temperature range.
With respect to the 103 rejection, applicant argues that in independent claim 1 and 20, the first energy beam and second energy beam are controlled by a common optical unit whereas Boswell discloses two independently controlled energy beams as a solution to single beam systems (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, 3rd paragraph). Applicant argues that as Boswell discloses the two independently controlled energy beams, it cannot be modified by Haberland to into a single energy beam system because this would render Boswell unsuitable for its intended use or otherwise change its principal of operation (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, 1st – 2nd paragraph).
However, nowhere does Boswell state that control of the energy beams are independent. “Independent” is not recited in Boswell and the cited sections in paragraphs [0009] and [0011]-[0012] do not require independent, separate control of the energy beams. While Boswell’s invention is created to address issues with a single energy beam, this does not teach away from using common optics to control two energy beams. Haberland teaches that using common optics for two energy beams allows for a compact design and Haberland clearly shows that while common optics are used, this this still results in distinct energy beams being transferred to the powder bed (Haberland, Fig 2 and 3). Haberland is not modifying Boswell into a single laser, it is using a common optical system to control two energy beams. As Boswell is silent concerning the optical control of the energy beams, the teachings of Haberland do not run counter to the teachings of Boswell. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights