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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 18, 19, 21, and 22-27 as amended. Claims 17-27 remain pending examination with claims 28-32 withdrawn.
The Examiner notes that the claim listing does not appear with the correct identifier of “(Currently amended)” required by MPEP 714.
The amendment to claims 18, 19, and 21-27 correct the lack of proper antecedent issues of the same previously indicated. Accordingly, the corresponding rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Claims 17-27 were previously rejected for various reasons. While the amendment addressed many of the rejections, the rejection of claim 17 was not addressed. Similarly, Applicant’s accompanying remarks omit discussion of claim 17.
37 CFR 1.111 (b) requires that “[i]n order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action” and that the “reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.”
The Examiner considers this omission to be minor given that the Applicant substantially responded to the issues raised in the Non-final Office action. In accordance with MPEP 714.03, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC 112 (b) is simply reiterated herein.
With respect to dependent claim 21, the previous Office action indicated that the:
“…use of “and/or” creates confusion, in this case, as it is unclear if the intention is for the step to occur both prior to and during production of the object. Taking the first limitation as an example, if “and” is true, then the subdividing of the powder layer occurs both prior to and during production of the object. This creates confusion in that it is unclear if both subdivisions pertain to the same regions or different regions. For instance, are the plurality of regions made during the subdividing of the powder layer prior to production the same regions or different regions during production?”
Applicant traverses in that:
“With regard to additional indefiniteness issue raised for claim 21, the Office Action states that the use of "and/or" would render unclear whether the steps of "subdividing the layer into a plurality of regions" and "determining whether said region is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities" occur before or during irradiation. Since the determination of the regions as such as well as the determination of their respective conditions (in terms of being affected by particulate impurities) can be performed not only before starting the production (i.e. before irradiating the first layer) but additionally or alternatively in between irradiating two layers, Applicant submits that the skilled person would have no difficulty understanding the subject matter of claim 21 and thus submits that the present language is therefore not indefinite under 35 USC § 112.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 clearly sets forth that the subdividing step occurs to the “raw material powder layer to be selectively irradiated.” The use of “to be” reasonably conveys that the subdividing step occurs prior to irradiation. Similarly, claim 17 explicitly states that the determining step occurs for “at least one region prior to selectively irradiating said region.” From here, claim 21 using “and/or” allows for a different relationship than what is required in claim 17. For instance, claim 21 allows for the subdividing step to occur prior to the production of the work piece (i.e., prior to irradiating) and/or in situ during irradiation. However, claim 17 clearly sets forth that this step occurs with respect to a “to be” irradiated region (i.e., a region not irradiated). Applicant’s contention that this step can be performed “no only before starting production but additionally or alternatively in between irradiating two layer does not address the basis of the rejection; specifically, the alternative limitation. As claim 17 clearly sets forth the temporal relationship between the subdividing step and the irradiation of the region (i.e., occurring prior to irradiation) and claim 21 sets forth an alternative relationship (i.e., occurring during irradiation), the Examiner maintains that the claim remains indefinite.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
With respect to claim 17, Applicant traverses the Morimoto reference in that:
The Office Action asserts on page 8 that Morimoto satisfies the "determining" step of claim 17 by reasoning that "[h]ere, the change in behavior is determined to occur after irradiation begins. Prior to this, at least one region would be considered to be unaffected as the material has yet to be irradiated." Applicant respectfully submits that this interpretation improperly reads the claimed "determining" step out of the claims. Claim 17 requires that a determination of the impurity condition of the region be made before selectively irradiating that region. The Office Action effectively equates the mere fact that a region has not yet been irradiated with a determination that the region is substantially unaffected. Applicant submits that claim 17 does not merely require that a region be substantially unaffected before irradiation but requires determining whether the region is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities before irradiation of that region begins.
Applicant defines “particulate impurities” as those “generated during irradiation of a previous raw material powder layer and later covered with and/or embedded in the raw material powder of the layer to be irradiated” and that “[s]uch impurities are pre-existing contaminants present before irradiation of the region begins.” Applicant concludes with “the fact that Morimoto has not yet irradiated a region does not disclose the claimed determination of whether that region is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 does not define or limit “particulate impurities” and, as such, is not limited to “pre-existing contaminants.” In Morimoto a non-irradiated region would be considered by those of ordinary skill in the art to be substantially unaffected by particular impurities that result from irradiating a different area. This is supported in at least paragraphs 0007 and 0055-0056 of Morimoto, that discusses the formation of “particulate impurities” (corresponding to the sputter 60/fume 70 formation) as a result of irradiating a particular region of the powder. Those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that areas that have yet to be irradiated by the laser in Morimoto would be substantially unaffected as sputter 60 and/or fume 70 have not been formed in that area. For such reasons, the Examiner maintains that Morimoto teaches the claimed determining step.
Applicant further traverses the rejection of claim 17 in view of Morimoto in that:
In addition, the Office Action's mapping of Morimoto's irradiated and non-irradiated areas to the claimed "subdividing" step is deficient. Any distinction in Morimoto between irradiated and non-irradiated areas results from execution of the irradiation process itself. Morimoto does not disclose that such areas are subdivided and then evaluated before irradiation to determine whether a particular region is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17, in relevant part, requires “subdividing a raw material powder layer to be selectively irradiated with electromagnetic or particle radiation in accordance with a geometry of a corresponding layer of the work piece to be produced into a plurality of regions” and “determining for at least one region prior to selectively irradiating said region with electromagnetic or particle radiation, whether said region is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities.” Claim 17 does not recite, nor require, that each region be evaluated as to whether they are affected or substantially unaffected. Rather, the claim language requires “at least one region.” This “at least one region” is not claimed as pertaining to the “plurality of regions” resulting from the subdividing step. Morimoto discusses “subdividing” in the context of dividing a raw powder layer 22 into irradiated and non-irradiated regions. Morimoto further discusses whether or not at least one region is affected or unaffected based on the formation of sputter 60 and/or fume 70.
In this case, Figures 5A-C illustrates irradiated regions and not irradiated regions of the powder layer and that the beam L is translated across the surface to irradiate regions of the layer. As Morimoto is directed to a method or manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped object by “alternate repetition of powder-layer forming and a solidified-layer forming” (Abstract) process, those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this involves subdividing the powder layer into distinct regions.
For such reasons detailed above, the Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s traversal and maintains the current grounds of rejection.
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 17-27 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 17 recites “whether said region is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities,” which creates confusion as it is unclear if the particulate impurities refer to impurities that may exist in/on the raw material powder layer, in the atmosphere surrounding the raw material powder layer, or of the radiation beam that may affect how the region is irradiated (for instance impurities on an optical device of the irradiation system that inhibit beam propagation).
Claim 21 recites “the raw material powder layer to be selectively irradiated with electromagnetic or particle radiation is subdivided into a plurality of regions prior to starting the production of the three-dimensional work piece and/or in situ during the production of the three-dimensional work piece; and/or the determination of whether a region of the raw material powder layer is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities is made prior to starting the production of the three-dimensional work piece and/or in situ during the production of the three-dimensional work piece.” Essentially, the claim requires a step (subdividing or determining steps) to occur prior to production of the 3D object and/or in situ during production. The use of “and/or” creates confusion, in this case, as it is unclear if the intention is for the step to occur both prior to and during production of the object. Taking the first limitation as an example, if “and” is true, then the subdividing of the powder layer occurs both prior to and during production of the object. This creates confusion in that it is unclear if both subdivisions pertain to the same regions or different regions. For instance, are the plurality of regions made during the subdividing of the powder layer prior to production the same regions or different regions during production?
Claim 21 also recites that the determination on whether a region is affected or unaffected by impurities is “made prior to starting the production” and/or “in situ during the production” of the 3D object. However, claim 17 recites that the determination on whether the region is affected or unaffected by impurities is done “prior to selectively irradiating said region.” Claim 21 appears to redefine when this determination step occurs. As such, it is unclear if the determination of claim 21 is referring to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another. If it is the same region, then it is unclear, given the use of “and/or” whether the claimed method requires the determination step to occur prior to and during irradiation.
Dependent claims not explicitly addressed remain indefinite as they inherit the above deficiency due to their respective dependency from claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-23, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimoto et al. (US20190217386).
Regarding claim 17, Morimoto teaches a method of operating an irradiation system for irradiating layers of a raw material powder with electromagnetic or particle radiation in order to produce a three-dimensional work piece (para. 0001; “a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped object, in which a formation of a solidified layer is performed by an irradiation of a powder layer with a light beam.”), the method comprising the steps:
subdividing a raw material powder layer to be selectively irradiated with electromagnetic or particle radiation in accordance with a geometry of a corresponding layer of the work piece to be produced into a plurality of regions (See Figures 2A-D and 3A-D and paragraphs 0063 and 0065. The object to be manufactured is defined by the powder layers in which the beam L is used to selectively irradiate a layer 22 in sections; i.e., areas that are irradiated and areas that are not. The geometry of a prior solidified layer 24 corresponds to the formation of the solidified portion 24a, which is based, in part, on the regions irradiated by the laser beam) (see also Figures 5A-C or 6A-C, which similarly detail the dividing of a powder layer 22 into an irradiated and not irradiated region in accordance with the geometry of a preceding solidified layer),
determining for at least one region prior to selectively irradiating said region with electromagnetic or particle radiation, whether said region is affected or substantially -unaffected by particulate impurities (para. 0007, 0055-0056, and discuss a change in behaviors of sputter 60 and/or fume 70 as a result of light absorption changes) (para. 0063 and 0065 describe that the absorption of the energy from beam L leads to accuracy of a newly solidified layer) [Here, the change in behavior is determined to occur after irradiation begins. Prior to this, at least one region would be considered to be unaffected as the material has yet to be irradiated.]; and
upon selectively irradiating said region of the raw material powder layer with electromagnetic or particle radiation, controlling an energy density applied to the region of the raw material powder layer by a radiation beam in such a manner that the energy density is higher in case it is determined that the region of the raw material powder layer is affected by particulate impurities than in case it is determined that the region of the raw material powder layer is substantially unaffected by particulate impurities (para. 0073; “Upon the changing of the appearance property, it may be judged that the number of the sputter and the amount of the fume are relatively large, and the size of the sputter is relatively large. After the judgment, the irradiation condition of the light beam L may be suitably changed during the formation of the new single solidified layer 24B such that the new single solidified layer 24B is suitably formed as a whole. Para. 0074; “While being not particularly limited, an irradiation energy of the light beam L may be increased during the formation of the new single solidified layer 24B as shown in FIG. 5A for example, to suitably form the new single solidified layer 24B as a whole. A scan speed of the light beam L may be decreased during the formation of the new single solidified layer 24B as shown in FIG. 5B for example, to suitably form the new single solidified layer 24B as a whole. In addition, a spot diameter of the light beam L may be decreased during the formation of the new single solidified layer 24B as shown in FIG. 5C for example, to suitably form the new single solidified layer 24B as a whole.”).
Regarding claim 18, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein the energy density applied to the region of the raw material powder layer is controlled by suitably adapting at least one of a power, a focus diameter and a focus shape of the radiation beam directed across the region of the raw material powder layer [as detailed above in claim 17] and/or at least one of a scan speed and a scan pattern according to which the radiation beam is directed across the region of the raw material powder layer.
Regarding claim 19, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein the determination of whether the region of the raw material powder layer is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities is made in dependence on a direction of flow of a gas stream directed across the raw material powder layer and/or in dependence on a spatter trajectory determined based on a flow speed of a gas stream directed across the raw material powder layer, a gas flow profile of a gas stream directed across the raw material powder layer and/or a particle weight of the particulate impurities (The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not require, nor is limited to, the particle weight being determined. In this case, the degree of sputter 60 and fume 70, and the appearance of spot 50 is, at least partially, based on the weight of the particles in sputter 60/fume 70.).
Regarding claim 20, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 19, including wherein a region of the raw material powder layer which extends for a predetermined distance from an upstream edge of the raw material powder layer in the direction of flow of the gas stream directed across the raw material powder layer and/or which extends for a predetermined distance from an upstream irradiation starting position in the direction of flow of the gas stream directed across the raw material powder layer is considered as a region of the raw material powder layer which is substantially unaffected by particulate impurities (the region unaffected is shown, for instance in Figs. 1B, as the region that is not irradiated that extends from the left edge towards irradiation spot 50, in which the direction of fume 70 occurs. Note, the claim does not recite that the gas stream is a component of the irradiation system. In this case, the gas stream is considered to correspond to the gas stream of the impurities present in the production process).
Regarding claim 21, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein the raw material powder layer to be selectively irradiated with electromagnetic or particle radiation is subdivided into a plurality of regions prior to starting the production of the three-dimensional work piece and/or in situ during the production of the three-dimensional work piece (as detailed in claim 17, above. The powder layer is divided between irradiated and non-irradiated regions during production of the object); and/or the determination of whether the region of the raw material powder layer is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities is made prior to starting the production of the three-dimensional work piece and/or in situ during the production of the three-dimensional work piece (see claims 17, above. Change in behavior of the sputter and/or fume occurs during production).
Regarding claim 22, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein the determination of whether the region of the raw material powder layer is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities is made in dependence on the geometry of a work piece layer generated by irradiating the raw material powder layer with electromagnetic [The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not require, nor is limited to, the geometry being determined or used as a parameter in the determination. Rather, the claim merely requires that such the determination is made in dependence on the geometry. The change in behavior of the sputter and/or fume results from the irradiated spot 50 as it irradiates the powder material. The geometry of the powder material, or the layer being formed, effects how the material is irradiated. For instance, changes in thickness or shape of the powder layer in a particular region would change the how the powder material behaves upon irradiation. This is shown in Figures 7B and 7C in which the thickness of a previous layer effects how the powder is irradiated] or particle radiation and/or in dependence on a geometry of a work piece layer generated by irradiating a previous raw material powder layer with electromagnetic or particle radiation.
Regarding claim 23, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein the determination of whether the region of the raw material powder layer is affected by particulate impurities or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities is made in dependence on at least one of a range of values of the energy density which is intended to be applied to the raw material powder layer by the irradiation system, a pressure prevailing in the surroundings of the raw material powder layer, a type of a gas forming a gas stream directed across the raw material powder layer, a thickness of the raw material powder layer, a flow rate of the gas stream directed across the raw material powder layer, a material contained in the raw material powder layer [Para. 0061, change in color occurs from a gas released from the powder layer], an angle at which a radiation beam impinges onto the raw material powder layer, a direction of movement of the radiation beam across the raw material powder layer, and a distance from a gas flow inlet and/or an upstream edge of the raw material powder layer.
Regarding claim 25, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein upon selectively irradiating the region of the raw material powder layer which is determined to be affected by particulate impurities, the energy density applied to the region of the raw material powder layer by the radiation beam is varied in dependence on the degree of interference of the region by particulate impurities (para. 0074, irradiation energy of beam L may be increased).
Regarding claim 27, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein upon selectively irradiating the region of the raw material powder layer which is determined to be affected by particulate impurities, the energy density applied to the region of the raw material powder layer by a radiation beam is increased in discrete increments and/or continuously with an increasing degree of interference of the region by particulate impurities (para. 0074, irradiation energy of beam L may be increased).
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) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Huebinger et al. (WO2019096421).
Regarding claim 24, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein the determination of whether the region of the raw material powder layer is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities is made in dependence on an irradiation position of a radiation beam (see claim 17; above).
Morimoto is silent on using a plurality of radiation beams relative to each other.
Huebinger relates to a method for producing a three-dimensional work piece from a raw material powder (Abstract) and teaches using a plurality of radiation beams relative to each other (Fig. 1, beams 8; 11:24-12:10 discusses independently operable beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morimoto with Huebinger by replacing the single beam of Morimoto, with the plurality of radiation beams of Heubinger, for in doing so would improve the irradiation system by having multiple beams irradiating the powder material layer at the same time, thereby allowing for a greater irradiation area.
Regarding claim 26, Morimoto teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 17, including wherein upon selectively irradiating the region of the raw material powder layer by the radiation beam, which region is determined to be affected by particulate impurities generated by the radiation beam, the energy density applied to the region by the radiation beam is increased (see claim 17, above).
Morimoto is silent on using a two radiation beams.
Huebinger relates to a method for producing a three-dimensional work piece from a raw material powder (Abstract) and teaches using distinct radiation beams (Fig. 1, beams 8; 11:24-12:10 discusses independently operable beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morimoto with Huebinger by replacing the single beam of Morimoto, with the plurality of radiation beams of Heubinger, for in doing so would improve the irradiation system by having multiple beams irradiating the powder material layer at the same time, thereby allowing for a greater irradiation area.
The combination suggests using two radiation beams which would produce an arrangement in which the energy density of at least one beam is increased (as detailed in Morimoto; increasing beam energy due to sputter 60/fume 70) relative to the other beam.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights