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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered.
Status
No amendment was filed in the response dated 4/13/2026. Claims 9-16 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walrand (US 2021/0178481)(of record) in view of Wuest (US 2018/0345413)(of record).
With respect to Claim 9, Walrand teaches a method of additive manufacturing an object from a powder layer, the method comprising steps of: directing (deemed to constitute “projecting”) an energy beam onto a surface of the powder layer to form a spot to melt a portion of the powder, scanning a first zone of the surface of the powder layer with the energy beam in a forward longitudinal scanning direction, and during the scanning of the first zone, directing the energy beam so that the spot travels the first zone in a trajectory that may comprise a series of continuous first loops offset relative to one another in the forward longitudinal scanning direction, and thus, wherein the spot travels each of the first loops by rotating in a first rotation direction. (para. 26-32, 93, 102-107; Fig. 4a).
Walrand further teaches scanning a second zone of the surface of the powder layer with the energy beam in a backward longitudinal scanning direction opposite to the forward longitudinal scanning direction, the second zone being adjacent to the first zone and traveling parallel to the first zone in an opposite longitudinal direction and thus deemed to comprise wherein” the second zone being adjacent to the first zone in a transverse scanning direction perpendicular to the forward longitudinal scanning direction” as instantly claimed. (see Fig. 3a).
Walrand is silent as to whether the circular looping pattern of the energy beam rotates about the same first rotation direction or a second rotation direction.
Wuest teaches a method of additive manufacturing an object from a powder layer, the method comprising steps of: projecting an energy beam onto a surface of the powder layer to form a spot to melt a portion of the powder, scanning a first zone of the surface with the energy beam in a forward longitudinal scanning direction, and during the scanning of the first zone, directing the energy beam so that the spot travels the first zone in a trajectory that may comprise an oscillating path forming continuous first loops offset relative to one another in the forward longitudinal scanning direction, and thus, wherein the spot travels each of the first loops by rotating in a first rotation direction. (abstract; para. 13-25, 56, 126-127; Fig. 11A, 11B).
Wuest also teaches the ability to tailor the beam properties, including varying the beam width, oscillating frequency, direction, and rotation direction in order to obtain desired melt and solidification characteristics. (para. 44, 56, 58, 68, 112, 120). For example, Wuest teaches embodiments comprising two energy beams each having an oscillating opposite sense of rotation and thus, comprising a first rotation direction and a second rotation direction being opposite the first direction. (para. 56, 93-95, 120; Fig. 8A, 9). Figs. 8A and 9, in particular, demonstrate two energy beams scanning first and second zones of a surface of a powder layer, the first and second zones adjacent to one another, and wherein the beams have opposite senses of oscillation. Thus, Wuest provides specific motivation for reversing the sense of oscillation of an energy beam scanning a second zone of a surface of powder adjacent to a first zone in the surface of the powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Walrand, to select an opposite direction of rotation when the energy beam scans the second zone in the opposite/backward longitudinal direction, as taught by Wuest, in order to obtain more uniform heating/melting, improved melt pool mixing, and/or control the temperature stability and/or cooling rates of a melt pool and thereby, improve the quality of the solidified additively manufactured powder layer(s), for example, improved uniformity or reduced defects, in the respective zones. Additionally, as evidenced by Wuest, the energy beam parameters such as oscillating frequency and rotation direction are result effective variables, that may be varied to obtain desired melting/temperature properties in the powder layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select optimum or workable direction(s) of rotation of an oscillating energy beam to obtain desired melting characteristics. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated when practicing the method of Walrand, to select a rotation direction from the limited number of possibilities (essentially only two for the single looping trajectory of Walrand and Wuest) with a predictable result of success. See MPEP 2144.05; 2143.
In other words, based on the looping trajectory of the first and second scanning directions taught by Walrand there are only two relevant senses/directions of rotation and Walrand teaches at least one such sense/direction. Wuest teaches a method wherein the sense/direction of rotation may be reversed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art need only select between two possible options (e.g. clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation directions). Accordingly, selecting an opposite rotation direction when moving in an opposite longitudinal direction would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art selecting from the two relevant options. See MPEP 2143. That is, Walrand and Wuest are both drawn to the problem of looping/oscillating energy beams in an additively manufacturing process, there is a finite and predictable number of senses of rotation to address this problem, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the rotation direction of the energy beam with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 10, Walrand teaches wherein at least two loops across a trajectory may cross over each other (see Fig. 4a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of Walrand in view of Wuest wherein at least two of the first loops and/or at least two of the second loops “cross over.”
With respect to Claim 11, Walrand teaches wherein at least two loops across a trajectory have the same dimensions (see Fig. 4a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of Walrand in view of Wuest wherein at least two of the first loops and/or at least two of the second loops have the same dimensions.
With respect to Claim 12, Walrand teaches wherein a second scanning direction of the energy beam along a second zone parallel to the first zone and first scanning direction are not overlapping (see Fig. 3a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Walrand in view of Wuest such that the second loops are projected/directed “away” from the first loops in the transverse scanning direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to project the second loops away from the first loops in the transverse scanning direction in order to minimize the number of scanning passes needed to form an additive layer and thus, enhance the efficiency of the method.
With respect to Claim 13, Walrand teaches wherein the laser beam spot may have a width of, for example, 50-300 microns (para. 58)
Wuest teaches the ability to control the length (amplitude) of the loops by adjusting the scanning mirrors that control the energy beam toward the powder surface and further teaches that the maximum deflection allows for an amplitude of up to 5 mm, overlapping the instantly claimed range. (para. 53, 56, 61, 67, 126-128). Wuest teaches that the beam diameter is typically less than 1 mm, for example, 100 microns. (para. 54).
Thus, Walrand and Wuest are both drawn to energy beam width on the order of 100 microns, and deflecting the beam to form looping trajectories. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Walrand to form loops having an amplitude greater than the beam width (about 100 microns) and up to 5 mm, as taught by Wuest, in order to efficiently melt scanned layer of powder while balancing the need for improved granularity of the additively formed layer to form desired structures/features. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 14, Walrand teaches wherein the beam oscillates in the transverse scanning direction at a frequency of 1.5 kHz or more, falling within the instantly claimed range. (para. 21, 54, 79).
With respect to Claim 15, Walrand teaches wherein the energy beam is a laser (abstract) and also teaches the addition of an additional energy beam melting source comprising an electron beam. (para. 112).
With respect to Claim 16, Walrand teaches an additive manufacturing device/apparatus for manufacturing an object from a powder layer, the device comprising an energy source, such as a laser, configured to project an energy beam onto a surface of the powder layer in the form of a spot having a width/diameter so as to melt the powder, the device comprising a control unit from controlling the laser beam parameters including spot size, oscillation frequency, and direction and configured to: cause the energy beam to scan a first zone of the surface in a forward longitudinal scanning direction, and during the scanning of the first zone, directing the energy beam so that the spot travels the first zone in a trajectory that may comprise a series of continuous first loops offset relative to one another in the forward longitudinal scanning direction, and thus, wherein the spot travels each of the first loops by rotating in a first rotation direction. (para. 5-32, 93, 102-107; Figs. 1, 2, 4a).
Walrand further teaches wherein the device causes the energy beam to scan a second zone of the surface in a backward longitudinal scanning direction opposite to the forward longitudinal scanning direction, the second zone being adjacent to the first zone and traveling parallel to the first zone in an opposite longitudinal direction and thus deemed to comprise wherein” the second zone being adjacent to the first zone in a transverse scanning direction perpendicular to the forward longitudinal scanning direction” as instantly claimed. (see Fig. 3a).
Walrand is silent as to whether the circular looping pattern of the energy beam rotates about the same first rotation direction or a second rotation direction.
Wuest teaches a method of additive manufacturing an object from a powder layer and a device for carrying out said method, the device configured to project an energy beam onto a surface of the powder layer to form a spot to melt a portion of the powder, scan a first zone of the surface with the energy beam in a forward longitudinal scanning direction, and during the scanning of the first zone, directing the energy beam so that the spot travels the first zone in a trajectory that may comprise an oscillating path forming continuous first loops offset relative to one another in the forward longitudinal scanning direction, and thus, wherein the spot travels each of the first loops by rotating in a first rotation direction. (abstract; para. 13-25, 56-58, 126-127; Figs. 1-5, 11A, 11B).
Wuest teaches the ability of the device to tailor the beam properties, including varying the beam width, oscillating frequency, direction, and rotation direction in order to obtain desired melt and solidification characteristics. (para. 13-26, 44, 56, 58, 68, 112, 120). For example, Wuest teaches embodiments comprising two energy beams each having an oscillating opposite sense of rotation and thus, comprising a first rotation direction and a second rotation direction being opposite the first direction. (para. 56, 93-95, 120; Fig. 8A, 9). Figs. 8A and 9, in particular, demonstrate two energy beams scanning first and second zones of a surface of a powder layer, the first and second zones adjacent to one another, and wherein the beams have opposite senses of oscillation. Thus, Wuest provides specific motivation for reversing the sense of oscillation of an energy beam scanning a second zone of a surface of powder adjacent to a first zone in the surface of the powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Walrand, to configure an energy beam to scan in an opposite direction of rotation when the energy beam scans the second zone in the opposite/backward longitudinal direction, as taught by Wuest, in order to obtain more uniform heating/melting, improved melt pool mixing, and/or control the temperature stability and/or cooling rates of a melt pool and thereby, improve the quality of the solidified additively manufactured powder layer(s), for example, improved uniformity or reduced defects, of the solidified additively manufactured powder layer(s) in the respective zones. Additionally, as evidenced by Wuest, the energy beam parameters such as oscillating frequency and rotation direction are result effective variables, that may be varied to obtain desired melting/temperature properties in the powder layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select optimum or workable direction(s) of rotation of an oscillating energy beam to obtain desired melting characteristics. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a rotation direction for the first and second scanning passes of the device from the limited number of possibilities (essentially only two for the single looping trajectory of Walrand and Wuest) with a predictable result of success. (See MPEP 2144.05; 2143; see also rejection of claim 9 above, incorporated here by reference).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Walrand and Wuest because there is no motivation to combine the two references.” (Remarks, p. 6) Specifically, Applicant argues that because Walrand teaches a single-beam method one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the method with a feature from the dual-beam method of Wuest and the combination must rely on impermissible hindsight. Applicant also argues that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated by uniformity based on the disclosure of Wuest. (Remarks, p. 7). These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Simply put, Wuest teaches that the direction of rotation of an oscillating beam is a parameter that may be adjusted. The fact that Wuest may teach this fact in the context of a dual-beam method, does not diminish the simple and straightforward evidence disclosed by the reference. Moreover, Wuest specifically teaches a method comprising a single oscillating beam, rendering Applicant’s arguments moot. (Wuest, para. 53). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the broad utility of varying beam parameters, including reversing the direction of rotation of an oscillating beam, on its own merit and not requiring other particulars of the method of Wuest. Selection of a direction of rotation, the selection comprising essentially only two choices as discussed in the rejection, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The motivation to combine does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art, rather, it may be impliedly contained in the prior art or may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144. The prior art references, on the whole, provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that varying and overlapping beam path trajectories may improve the resulting quality of the additively manufactured article, including uniformity. (see, e.g., para. 50-53 of Wuest discussing the benefits of oscillation and overlapping beam paths). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary/reverse the sense of beam rotation, to improve uniformity of, for example, heating, mixing, and/or cooling rates, based on the overall teachings of Walrand, Wuest, and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and is not disparaged by the citations noted by Applicant.
Furthermore, as detailed in the rejection, Wuest teaches exemplary embodiments comprising two energy beams each having an oscillating opposite sense of rotation and thus, comprising a first rotation direction and a second rotation direction being opposite the first direction. (para. 56, 93-95, 120 ; Fig. 8A, 9). Figs. 8A and 9, in particular, demonstrate two energy beams scanning first and second zones of a surface of a powder layer, the first and second zones adjacent to one another, and wherein the beams have opposite senses of oscillation. Thus, Wuest provides specific motivation for reversing the sense of oscillation of an energy beam scanning a second zone of a surface of powder adjacent to a first zone in the surface of the powder.
Applicant fails to provide any evidence demonstrating criticality or unexpected results from the reversal of a sense/direction of rotation of the energy beam and therefore, fails to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the references. Applicant is invited to provide an affidavit or declaration providing additional evidence, commensurate with the scope of the claims, to support their arguments.
Finally, Applicant argues that the combination of Walrand and Wuest would not have a reasonable expectation of success. This argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant misconstrues paragraphs 8 and 50 of Wuest to suggest that the reference teaches away from the combination. The citation in paragraph 8 is drawn to discussing a problem of a method taught by a different reference that is not drawn to an oscillating beam path and therefore, is not applicable to the instant combination. Additionally, paragraph 50 is drawn to the thermal conditions of a straight path as compared to an oscillating path, and therefore, the conclusion is not deemed applicable to the combination. Finally, there is no evidence in the record to show that a particular sense of direction of an oscillating beam would lead to anything but the predictable result of success, as detailed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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 A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights