The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Notice to Applicant In response to the communication received on 1/11/2023, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18005158. Status of Claims Claims 1-14 are pending. Drawings The applicant’s drawings submitted on 1/11/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed 1/11/2023 and 05/01/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c) , acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on 18005158 filed 01/11/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2021/ 025255 , International Filing Date07/12/2021 claims foreign priority to 102020000017164, filed 07/15/2020. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: storage means for storing the interpolation functions in claim 7 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention. Claims 12-14 introduce statutory classes other than those statutory classes from which they depend which improperly confuses statutory classes and therefore fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. In maintaining distinct statutory classes that particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, Examiner interprets the following claims as: 12. The method according to claim 1 further comprising a system for simulating a manufacturing process employing a moving heat source, intended to melt or to sinter a material, wherein the heat source is driven according to a predefined path; the system comprising a processing unit or a computer comprising at least one processor operable for executing a computer program carrying out the steps according to claim 1 ; a database configured to store the interpolation functions; and at least one device to display, print, or store the results of the macro-scale simulation. 13. The method according to claim 1 further comprising a computer program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer , cause the computer to carry out steps the steps of the method of claim 1 . 14. The method according to claim 1 further comprising a computer-readable storage medium, comprising the instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out steps the steps of the method of claim 1 . Examiner notes that if Applicant intends to create claims of a different statutory class , then maintain the independence of the claim . Otherwise, it is a dependent claim that depends upon the statutory class of the independent claim. Claim 1 (and similar claims) recites the limitation " determining the displacements and all the derived quantities.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since there does not exist initialization for displacements and derived quantities, Examiner interprets as determining displacements and derived quantities. Considering the limitation as a whole, Examiner interprets as executing a macro-scale simulation for an intended use of determining displacements and derived quantities throughout the entire manufacturing process. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception ( i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows Prong Oneevaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Twoevaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception . The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font: A computer implemented method for simulating a manufacturing process employing a moving heat source, intended to melt or to sinter a material, wherein the heat source is driven according to a predefined path, wherein the method comprises the steps ofreading a plurality of process parameters for performing the manufacturing process; reading the material properties for simulating the manufacturing process; calculating through a meso-scale model the physical quantities representative of the process-induced thermal history and residual stress and strain fields for each set of process parameters employed for the given material ; defining a macro-scale finite element mesh of all the parts involved in the manufacturing process, comprising a plurality of elements; and scaling the meso-scale results to the macro-scale FE mesh based on the defined path , wherein the scaling step also comprises the steps of calculating the value of the physical quantities at one or more sample points of each element of the FE mesh, based on the defined path , and averaging the values of the physical quantities computed in- side each element of the macro-scale FE mesh; and s executing a macro-scale simulation , for determining the displacements and all the derived quantities throughout the entire manufacturing process. [or] A system for simulating a manufacturing process employing a moving heat source, intended to melt or to sinter a material, wherein the heat source is driven according to a predefined path; the system comprisinga processing unit or a computer comprising at least one processor operable for executing a computer program carrying out the steps according to claim 1 ; a database configured to store the interpolation functions ; and at least one device to display, print, or store the results of the macro-scale simulation. [or] A computer program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer , cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1. [or] A computer-readable storage medium , comprising the instructions which, when executed by a computer , cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1. The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which includes simulating a manufacturing process employing a moving heat source, intended to melt or to sinter a material, wherein the heat source is driven according to a predefined path executed by the additional element(s) of computer readable storage medium, computer , database and/or processor. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process . Thus, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion). Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) . Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The computer-readable storage medium, computer, processor, and/or database is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. , as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic computer-readable storage medium, computer, processor, and/or database limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, executing a macro-scale simulation by a computer-readable storage medium, computer, processor, and/or database is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of computer-readable storage medium, computer, processor, and/or database . Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing a macro-scale simulation by a computer-readable storage medium, computer, processor, and/or database is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶ 0075 wherein “ The system 300 comprises also a database 302 configured to store the interpolation functions 112. The database 302 may be hardware-based (memory, hard disk or any other storing means) and/or software-based, and it is coupled with the computer processor .” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples i . Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) ); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d) ); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) ); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook . The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 7 states “storing the interpolation functions in storage means”. There is recitation of an additional element, but the storage means is similar to structures found in claims 12-14 addressed and incorporated in the rejection above pertaining to the independent claims. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1 3 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because Applicant has claimed a computer program or computer readable storage respectively medium respectively which could reasonably comprise a transitory propagating signal per se . The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. In this instance, the Applicant’s specification states : ¶0075 the database 302 may be hardware-based (memory, hard disk or any other storing means) and/or software-based . Without a special definition, the plain English meaning of storage is broad enough to encompass signals. In the above ¶00 75 , the database may be, for example, but not limited to, other storing means or software based. Here, the computer readable storage medium includes an unlimited set . Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer readable storage medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se . As such , the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim . 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. ( US 20230201927 A1 ) hereinafter referred to as Wood in view of Wood , Mendoza, Boulware, Hoelzle ( NPL: Interrogation Of Mid-Build Internal Temperature Distributions Within Parts Being Manufactured Via The Powder Bed Fusion Process ) hereinafter referred to as Mendoza . Wood teaches: Claim 1. A c omputer implemented method for simulating a manufacturing process employing a moving heat source, intended to melt or to sinter a material, wherein the heat source is driven according to a predefined path, wherein the method comprises the steps of reading a plurality of process parameters for performing the manufacturing process (¶ 0004 A class of AM processes is known as powder bed fusion (PBF). PBF is a type of AM technology that builds parts in a layer-by-layer fashion out of a bed of metal powder via the selective melting action of a laser or electron beam heat source ¶0099 As noted above, Powder Bed Fusion (BPF) is an additive manufacturing process. The process occurs in three stages: 1) Sweep a layer of powder atop the build plate or an existing layer of powder, 2) sinter a pattern of 2D geometry into the laser with a laser (L-PBF) or electron beam (E-PBF), and 3) index the build platform in the —z direction to accommodate a new layer of powder, thus restarting the cycle ¶0087 the MPC component 408 uses them as a basis to alter the prescribed set of control inputs to the powder bed fusion (PBF) 412 machine in (quasi)-real time in view of uncertainty 410 in PBF process inputs. The control inputs are altered to perform corrective action, as necessary, so that x̂. sub .k|k is driven towards some predetermined target temperature field (404), r(t). Like the EnKF , MPC requires a model of the process. It functions by forecasting the process behavior N time steps into the future, and performing joint optimization (with constraints) over the spaces of process states and process inputs to identify those inputs which drive x̂. sub .k|k towards r(t) as rapidly as possible while obeying constraints and hyperparameter selection. Hereafter, the process inputs will be denoted u(t). The components of u(t) differ based on whether a linear time-invariant (LTI) or linear time-varying (LTV) process model is considered. The implementation of MPC for both process models will be described below. ); reading the material properties for simulating the manufacturing process ; calculating through a meso-scale model the physical quantities representative of the process-induced thermal history and residual stress and strain fields for each set of process parameters employed for the given material (¶ 0103 The simulation uses the geometry 600 of FIG. 6 and the material properties of Table 1. All properties correspond to linear least-squares fits, assuming linear models. Reference properties represent Inconel 718 at the solidus temperature, 1255° C. Linear model properties represent Inconel 718 at 25° C. Closed loop properties are the average of these. This material properties mismatch represents the linear model having inaccurate knowledge of the “real” (closed loop) system properties, even as equation (18) enforces compliance with a reference temperature field that is correlated with desired thermophysical properties. The nominal laser trajectory is governed by the parameters of Table 2. Here, rastering is performed in the x-direction, and Δx.sub.sky is the skywriting length per turnaround. The total distance traveled in the x-direction is 3 mm. ); defining a macro-scale finite element mesh of all the parts involved in the manufacturing process, comprising a plurality of elements (¶ 0059 In some implementations, the discretization of the volume is an adaptive mesh that changes over time in the model. In some implementations, the discretization is the finite element method. In some implementations, the discretization is the finite volume method. In some implementations, the discretization is the boundary element method. It is noted that an adaptive mesh does not preclude using finite elements. ); and scaling the meso-scale results to the macro-scale FE mesh based on the defined path , wherein the scaling step also comprises the steps of calculating the value of the physical quantities at one or more sample points of each element of the FE mesh, based on the defined path , and averaging the values of the physical quantities computed in- side each element of the macro-scale FE mesh (¶ 0067 Regarding model order reduction via balanced realization, the thermal model of Equation (2) mitigates the problem of model scale when attempting to represent PBF physics on the macroscale; however, the quantization of the system heat input can produce cumbersome node counts and therefore system sizes. Model order reduction (MOR) is used to reduce the impact of these issues. In an implementation, MOR may be performed via residualization . The residualization algorithm requires stability, controllability and observability of the system. The algorithm begins by performing the linear state transformation) z(t) = Tx(t), which puts the system in its balanced realization. The user then selects the first r (largest) Hankel Singular Values (HSVs) of the system, which are demonstrated in Equation (3). Each HSV is [00007 λ iWcWo;λ i denotes the i.sup.th eigenvalue of a matrix, and W.sub.c and W.sub.o are the controllability and observability grammians , respectively. ¶0070 The balanced realization of Equation (2) z(t) = Tx(t) is constructed, and the transformed system is divided into two parts, based on the relative magnitude of the HSVs. Partitioning the HSVs in this manner also partitions z into two groups: z.sub.1 ∈ ℝ. sup.r which constitute the “dominant” modes in the system input/output dynamics, and z.sub.2 ∈ ℝ.sup.n -r, which constitute the negligible modes. The partitioned system takes the form shown in Equation (4) ¶0103 The simulation uses the geometry 600 of FIG. 6 and the material properties of Table 1. All properties correspond to linear least-squares fits, assuming linear models. Reference properties represent Inconel 718 at the solidus temperature, 1255° C. Linear model properties represent Inconel 718 at 25° C. Closed loop properties are the average of these. This material properties mismatch represents the linear model having inaccurate knowledge of the “real” (closed loop) system properties, even as equation (18) enforces compliance with a reference temperature field that is correlated with desired thermophysical properties ); and executing a macro-scale simulation, for determining the displacements and all the derived quantities throughout the entire manufacturing process (¶ 0102 The results provided below illustrate that the subject matter of the present disclosure accommodates actuator restrictions by using Model Predictive Control (MPC) as the model-based control algorithm, which easily accommodates a variety of imposed constraints on the process actuators and allowable range of dynamics. In simulation, we test the ability of MPC to enforce compliance between the temperature field produced by simplified PBF process dynamics and a desired temperature field. Accuracy in tracking the desired field is quantified relative to the tracking error of a simulated OL system using a fixed schedule of process inputs. Knowledge of the current temperature field, necessary for MPC to function, is gathered from a simulated infrared (IR) camera. Since the camera cannot image all of the temperature field, and Ensemble Kalman Filter ( EnKF ) is used to estimate the field based on the measurements and a linearized process model ¶0103 The simulation uses the geometry 600 of FIG. 6 and the material properties of Table 1. All properties correspond to linear least-squares fits, assuming linear models. Reference properties represent Inconel 718 at the solidus temperature, 1255° C. Linear model properties represent Inconel 718 at 25° C. Closed loop properties are the average of these. This material properties mismatch represents the linear model having inaccurate knowledge of the “real” (closed loop) system properties, even as equation (18) enforces compliance with a reference temperature field that is correlated with desired thermophysical prop ) . Although not explicitly taught by Wood, Mendoza teaches in the analogous art of interrogation of mid-build internal temperature distributions within parts being manufactured via the powder bed fusion process : and residual stress and strain fields for each set of process parameters employed for the given material ( P g.1445-1446 Of interest to the PBF community is the validation of temperature predictions supplied by PBF process models, which may be used to better predict the formation of common defects such as high levels of residual stresses [1–3], porosity [4–6], and anisotropy in material properties [6–11]. The general Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) model validation task is as follows: Given a part geometry, termed coupon here, and process inputs and parameters, qualitatively or quantitatively compare a set of measurable process outputs to process outputs predicted by a model. These validations a critically important task for researchers in the field and is accomplished through taking in-situ temperature data of the process. We now give a brief sampling of such efforts and discuss the limitations of the strategies employed therein. ) ; scaling step also comprises the steps of calculating the value of the physical quantities at one or more sample points of each element of the FE mesh, based on the defined path , and averaging the values of the physical quantities computed in- side each element of the macro-scale FE mesh (Pg.1450 2.3 Non-IR signal acquisition Here we describe procedures for acquiring all non-IR camera data. Fig. 4 displays the signal acquisition pathways used throughout our experiments. The signals stored in the DAQ output array are sampled at 1000 Hz and ordered as follows: 1. Time stamp, t. 2–5) Temperature readings from TCs TCA-TCD for the coupon being tested, respectively, denoted as TA(t) through TD(t). (analog) 6. Temperature readings from the base plate TC, denoted as Tbase (t). (analog) 7. X-coordinate of the laser centroid, denoted as xc(t) (analog). This measurement was collected from the position of the corresponding galvanometer, hereafter referred to as the “ XGalvo .” Data converted from units of volts to mm via calibration map. 8. Y-coordinate of the laser centroid, denoted as yc (t) (analog). This measurement was collected from the position of the corresponding galvanometer, hereafter referred to as the “ YGalvo .” Data converted from units of volts to mm via calibration map. 9. Laser power, denoted as P(t). (analog) 10. Trigger signal used to synchronize all data streams (digital). Pg.1469 Fig. 12 mean TCAtemp TCCtemp TCDtemp Representative low temperature ε TC calibration data Data corresponds to ε calibration for the welded powder surface of coupon 4 at low temperatures. TCB data is absent as noted in Section 3.3. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interrogation of mid-build internal temperature distributions within parts being manufactured via the powder bed fusion process of Mendoza with the system for model predictive control ( mpc ) for estimating internal temperature distributions within parts being manufactured via the powder bed fusion process of Wood for the following reasons (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Wood ¶0006 teaches that it is desirable to acquire predictive model-based process monitoring with a minimum of necessary calibration; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Wood Abstract teaches estimation algorithms, methods, and systems are provided that estimate the internal temperatures inside of a part being built using powder bed fusion (PBF), and Mendoza Abstract teaches a comprehensive data set of a multitude of measured physical inputs and outputs under typical build conditions: embedded thermocouple temperatures, laser centroid, laser power, and infrared imagery of the exposed coupon faces ; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Wood at least the above cited paragraphs, and Mendoza at least the inclusively cited paragraphs. Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the interrogation of mid-build internal temperature distributions within parts being manufactured via the powder bed fusion process of Mendoza with the system for model predictive control ( mpc ) for estimating internal temperature distributions within parts being manufactured via the powder bed fusion process of Wood. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G). Wood teaches: Claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the meso-scale model determines the physical quantities on length scales comparable to the size of the heat source (¶ 0104 The nominal laser trajectory is governed by the parameters of Table 2. Here, rastering is performed in the x-direction, and Δx.sub.sky is the skywriting length per turnaround. The total distance traveled in the x-direction is 3 mm. During skywriting, the laser is turned off. These properties are “realistic” in that they produce fully-dense material according to the ΔH/ h.sub.s < 30 criteria evaluated with the properties labeled “reference” in Table 1. η = 0.5 is used as a representative value, as reported values of η for Inconel 718 vary in the 0.3-0.9, and vary with laser type. TABLE-US-00002 Laser scan parameters Parameter Symbol and unit Value Power W (watt) 150 Absorptivity η (-) 0.5 Beam radius r.sub.b (. Math.m ) 50 Laser speed ν (mm/s) 950 Hatch spacing h (. Math.m ) 50 Skywriting length Δx.sub.sky (mm) 0.5 ) . Wood teaches: Claim 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the physical quantities are obtained from the meso-scale simulation of a single scan line ( ¶ 0067 Regarding model order reduction via balanced realization, the thermal model of Equation (2) mitigates the problem of model scale when attempting to represent PBF physics on the macroscale; however, the quantization of the system heat input can produce cumbersome node counts and therefore system sizes. Model order reduction (MOR) is used to reduce the impact of these issues. In an implementation, MOR may be performed via residualization ¶0103 Linear model properties represent Inconel 718 at 25° C. Closed loop properties are the average of these. This material properties mismatch represents the linear model having inaccurate knowledge of the “real” (closed loop) system properties, even as equation (18) enforces compliance with a reference temperature field that is correlated with desired thermophysical properties. ) . Wood teaches: Claim 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the physical quantities are sampled or calculated on a plane perpendicular to the moving direction of the heat source ( ¶0016 FIG. 5 illustrates an example system schematic of Powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing having input and output channels for L-PBF and E-PBF with a slow raster speed; ¶ 0105 The reference temperature field, r.sub.k , is based on the Green’s Function solution to conductive heat transfer over an infinite half-plane. As shown in FIG. 7, this reference field produces a uniform melt pool geometry regardless of the laser’s location within Ω. To achieve this effect, r.sub.k is constructed without turning off the laser when skywriting, such that the melt pool geometry remains constant as the laser moves off Ω. Supposing in a real production environment, this geometry is correlated with fully-dense material with the desired engineering specifications, then accurate tracking of r.sub.k implies a qualified part. ) . Wood teaches: Claim 5. The method according to claim3, wherein the physical quantities are employed to define one or more interpolation functions ( ¶ 0110 The error metrics ||ê||.sub.2 and ||ê||.sub.∞ are bulk measurements of MPC efficacy. To help explain these metrics, we compare r.sub.k , x.sub.OL,k , x̂. sub.k,k , and x.sub.CL,k at the four points shown in FIG. 8. These points, tabulated in Table 3, simulate embedding thermocouples (TCs) within V and comparing estimations with experimental measurements at the corresponding locations. The temperature fields were interpolated onto the locations of Table 3 via a linear tetrahedrization method. In brief, the FEM element containing each TC is identified, and the temperature at the TC location is interpolated from the nodal temperatures using the volume coordinates of the point within that element. TABLE-US-00003 Locations of the sample points shown in FIG. 8 Dimension TCA TCB TCC TCD x 0.05 1.95 0.95 1.95 y 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 z 0.295 0.295 0.15 0. 020 Experimental Results TABLE-US-00004 Normalized norms-of-norms of x̃. sub.KF,k and x̃. sub.CL,k . All norms have units °C System ||x̃.sub.2( t.sub.k )||.sub.2 ||ê||.sub.2 || x̃.sub .∞( t.sub.k )||.sub.∞ ||ê||.sub.∞ KF 3.03 × 10.sup.7 1.88 2.66 × 10.sup.6 27.9 CL 3.56 × 10.sup.6 0.66 3.87 × 10.sup.4 0.58 OL 1.05 × 10.sup.7 9.2245 × 10.sup.4 FIG. 9 shows x̃.sub.2( t.sub.k ) and x̃.sub .∞( t.sub.k ) for all 3 systems. Immediately apparent is the failure of the EnKF to accurately estimate x.sub. CL,k . This is also observed in FIGS. 10A-10D, wherein the values of x̂.sub.k.sub .|. sub.k at the locations of Table 3 are wildly inaccurate, and in FIGS. 11A-11C ) . Wood teaches: Claim 6. The method according to claim5, wherein the interpolation functions compute the elastic strain, plastic strain, and maximum temperature based on the position with respect to the scan line ( ¶ 0110 The error metrics ||ê||.sub.2 and ||ê||.sub.∞ are bulk measurements of MPC efficacy. To help explain these metrics, we compare r.sub.k , x.sub.OL,k , x̂. sub.k,k , and x.sub.CL,k at the four points shown in FIG. 8. These points, tabulated in Table 3, simulate embedding thermocouples (TCs) within V and comparing estimations with experimental measurements at the corresponding locations. The temperature fields were interpolated onto the locations of Table 3 via a linear tetrahedrization method. In brief, the FEM element containing each TC is identified, and the temperature at the TC location is interpolated from the nodal temperatures using the volume coordinates of the point within that element. TABLE-US-00003 Locations of the sample points shown in FIG. 8 Dimension TCA TCB TCC TCD x 0.05 1.95 0.95 1.95 y 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 z 0.295 0.295 0.15 0. 020 Experimental Results TABLE-US-00004 Normalized norms-of-norms of x̃. sub.KF,k and x̃. sub.CL,k . All norms have units °C System ||x̃.sub.2( t.sub.k )||.sub.2 ||ê||.sub.2 || x̃.sub .∞( t.sub.k )||.sub.∞ ||ê||.sub.∞ KF 3.03 × 10.sup.7 1.88 2.66 × 10.sup.6 27.9 CL 3.56 × 10.sup.6 0.66 3.87 × 10.sup.4 0.58 OL 1.05 × 10.sup.7 9.2245 × 10.sup.4 FIG. 9 shows x̃.sub.2( t.sub.k ) and x̃.sub .∞( t.sub.k ) for all 3 systems. Immediately apparent is the failure of the EnKF to accurately estimate x.sub. CL,k . This is also observed in FIGS. 10A-10D, wherein the values of x̂.sub.k.sub .|. sub.k at the locations of Table 3 are wildly inaccurate, and in FIGS. 11A-11C ) . Wood teaches: Claim 7. The method according to claim5, comprising the step of storing the interpolation functions in storage means ( ¶ 0110 The error metrics ||ê||.sub.2 and ||ê||.sub.∞ are bulk measurements of MPC efficacy. To help explain these metrics, we compare r.sub.k , x.sub.OL,k , x̂. sub.k,k , and x.sub.CL,k at the four points shown in FIG. 8. These points, tabulated in Table 3, simulate embedding thermocouples (TCs) within V and comparing estimations with experimental measurements at the corresponding locations. The temperature fields were interpolated onto the locations of Table 3 via a linear tetrahedrization method. In brief, the FEM element containing each TC is identified, and the temperature at the TC location is interpolated from the nodal temperatures using the volume coordinates of the point within that element. TABLE-US-00003 Locations of the sample points shown in FIG. 8 Dimension TCA TCB TCC TCD x 0.05 1.95 0.95 1.95 y 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 z 0.295 0.295 0.15 0. 020 Experimental Results TABLE-US-00004 Normalized norms-of-norms of x̃. sub.KF,k and x̃. sub.CL,k . All norms have units °C System ||x̃.sub.2( t.sub.k )||.sub.2 ||ê||.sub.2 || x̃.sub .∞( t.sub.k )||.sub.∞ ||ê||.sub.∞ KF 3.03 × 10.sup.7 1.88 2.66 × 10.sup.6 27.9 CL 3.56 × 10.sup.6 0.66 3.87 × 10.sup.4 0.58 OL 1.05 × 10.sup.7 9.2245 × 10.sup.4 FIG. 9 shows x̃.sub.2( t.sub.k ) and x̃.sub .∞( t.sub.k ) for all 3 systems. Immediately apparent is the failure of the EnKF to accurately estimate x.sub. CL,k . This is also observed in FIGS. 10A-10D, wherein the values of x̂.sub.k.sub .|. sub.k at the locations of Table 3 are wildly inaccurate, and in FIGS. 11A-11C ) . Wood teaches: Claim 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein, before the step of calculating the value of the physical quantities at each sample point of the elements of the FE mesh , the scaling procedure further comprises the steps ofdefining one or more sample points for each element of the macro-scale FE mesh ; and s initializing the value of the physical quantities at every sample point, preferably at zero (¶ 0088 As a recap, u(t) ∈ ℝ.sup.m represents heat applied to the exposed surfaces of all elements on face Ω in the mesh, where Ω is the face of the part exposed to the laser (as described in the current application). y(t) ∈ ℝ. sup.p collects the temperatures recorded in each pixel of an infrared (IR) camera with a fixed FOV that covers all of Ω. A describes heat conduction between nodes in the FEM mesh, B maps the laser heat onto the relevant nodes in the mesh, and C models the mapping between nodal temperatures and measurements. As in [0078, the process issampled with a fixed time step, Δt , and therefore the process is modeled at discrete time instances t.sub.k = kΔt , k = 0,1,2, .... Hereafter, the subscript k denotes t.sub.k , i.e. x.sub.k = x( t.sub.k ) = x( kΔt ). ¶0106 The Finite Element Method (FEM) is used to propagate a discretizion through equation (1) to form:[ 00086 xt = Axt+Lt,u , where A describes heat propagation between nodes in V and L(t, u) distributes the heat flux onto the nodes. L( t, u) of equation (24) is linearized as in equation (2), assuming that the available control inputs are P(t) (Input 1, FIG. 5) and r.sub.b (t) (Input 2, FIG. 5), i.e. u = u(t, P(t), rb (t)). ) . Wood teaches: Claim 9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the sample points are distributed either randomly or regularly (¶ 0065 In the thermal model of Equation (2), x collects the temperature signals at all nodes in the mesh, A maps the degree of conductive heat flow between nodes (0 for nonadjacent nodes), B maps the degree of distribution of laser energy input onto nodes located on Ω, and C selects the nodes belonging to Ω as system output in keeping with the assumption that only exposed faces of the build are available for measurement. ) . Wood teaches: Claim 10. The method according to claim l, wherein the heat source is an electromagnetic beam, such as a laser, or an electron beam, and wherein the material is a powder to be layered (¶ 0104 The nominal laser trajectory is governed by the parameters of Table 2. Here, rastering is performed in the x-direction, and Δx.sub.sky is the skywriting length per turnaround. The total distance traveled in the x-direction is 3 mm. During skywriting, the laser is turned off. These properties are “realistic” in that they produce fully-dense material according to the ΔH/ h.sub.s < 30 criteria evaluated with the properties labeled “reference” in Table 1 ) . Wood teaches: Claim 11. The method according to claim l, wherein the process parameters comprise one or more of the following parametersa laser or electron, a scanning speed, a beam diameter, a layer thickness, a preheating temperature, and a build chamber atmosphere (¶ 0104 The nominal laser trajectory is governed by the parameters of Table 2. Here, rastering is performed in the x-direction, and Δx.sub.sky is the skywriting length per turnaround. The total distance traveled in the x-direction is 3 mm. During skywriting, the laser is turned off. These properties are “realistic” in that they produce fully-dense material according to the ΔH/ h.sub.s < 30 criteria evaluated with the properties labeled “reference” in Table 1 ) . As per claims 12,13, 14, the system , computer program and computer-readable storage medium tracks the method of claims 1 &7,1,1, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1&7,1,1 are applied to claims 12,13,14 , respectively. Wood discloses that the embodiment may be found as a system and manufacture (Fig. 1 and ¶0120 ). Limitations in claim 12 that are not stated in claims 1&7 are as follows, however: Wood teaches: a database and at least one device to display, print, or store the results of the macro-scale simulation (¶ 0122 Computing device 1300 may contain communication connection(s) 1312 that allow the device to communicate with other devices. Computing device 1300 may also have input device(s) 1314 such as a keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 1316 such as a display, speakers, printer, etc. may also be included. All these devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length here. ¶0102 The results provided below illustrate that the subject matter of the present disclosure accommodates actuator restrictions by using Model Predictive Control (MPC) as the model-based control algorithm, which easily accommodates a variety of imposed constraints on the process actuators and allowable range of dynamics ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to a