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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 17-27) in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 28-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/02/2026.
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 18 recites “a radiation beam” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the intention is for “a radiation beam” to refer to the same recited in claim 17 or to another, distinct, radiation beam.
Claim 19 recites “a region of the raw material powder layer” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 19 refer to the same determination of the same region recited in claim 17 or to the determination of another region?
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and inherits the above deficiency.
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 recites “a region of the raw material powder layer” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 21 refer to the same determination of the same region recited in claim 17 or to the determination of another region?
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.
Claim 22 recites “a region of the raw material powder layer” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 22 refer to the same determination of the same region recited in claim 17 or to the determination of another region?
Claim 22 recites “a geometry of a work piece layer” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if this refers to “a geometry of a corresponding layer of the workpiece” recited in claim 17 or to something else.
Claim 23 recites “a region of the raw material powder layer” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 23 refer to the same determination of the same region recited in claim 17 or to the determination of another region?
Claim 23 recites “a type of the gas forming the gas stream” and “a flow rate of the gas stream” which renders the claim indefinite as the claim lacks proper antecedent basis for a gas stream. Claim 17 makes no mention of a gas stream and it is unclear if the gas stream is used in the irradiation system or if the gas stream is intended to be the impurities claimed in claim 17.
Claim 23 recites “a radiation beam” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the intention is for “a radiation beam” to refer to the same recited in claim 17 or to another, distinct, radiation beam.
Claim 23 recites, in relevant part, “a direction of movement of the radiation beam across the raw material powder layer, in particular relative to the direction of flow of the gas stream directed.” The use of “in particular” raises doubt as to whether or not what follows is required or merely optional.
Claim 24 recites “a region of the raw material powder layer” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 24 refer to the same determination of the same region recited in claim 17 or to the determination of another region?
Claim 25 recites “irradiating a region” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 25 refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region that is irradiated and, subsequently, determined to be affected by impurities?
Claim 25 recites “a radiation beam” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the intention is for “a radiation beam” to refer to the same recited in claim 17 or to another, distinct, radiation beam.
Claim 26 recites “irradiating a region” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 26 refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region that is irradiated and, subsequently, determined to be affected by impurities? The claim centers on the region being determined to be “affected by particulate impurities generated by another radiation beam.” However, claim 17 states that the determining whether a region is affected or unaffected by impurities occurs prior to selectively irradiating said region. This difference, further compounds the indicated confusion.
Claim 27 recites “irradiating a region” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “region” is intended to refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region of the plurality of regions. That is, does claim 27 refer to the same region recited in claim 17 or to another region that is irradiated and, subsequently, determined to be affected by impurities?
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 a 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 a 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 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 (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 a region of the raw material powder layer is affected or substantially unaffected by particulate impurities is made in dependence on a 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 a 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 the gas forming the 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, in particular relative to the direction of flow of the gas stream directed, 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 a 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 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 a 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 a 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 a region of the raw material powder layer by a 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140305368 to Davis which details manufacturing an object from powder layers (Abstract) in which a detection device is used to detect impurities in the material (para. 0057).
US20180043432 to Domrose relates to a method of producing a 3D object via layered solidification of powder material (Abstract) in which optical emission behavior is detected during processing which indicates irregularity (para. 0045).
US20190047276 to Schodel relates to additively manufacturing an object by successive layerwise selective irradiation of material (Abstract) and teaches using an evaluation unit to determine spectral information of radiation that is emitted during manufacturing and that such information is indicative of impurities of the build material that influence the manufacturing process (para. 0008).
US2021/0252601 to Kerl relates to a method for producing a 3D object from build material (Abstract) and teaches that due to energy input during the selective solidification, impurities such as splashes, smoke, fumes, vapors, and/or gases can be generated that spread into the process chamber. Additionally, impurities can occur as a result of powder or dust being whirled up and that these can negatively affect the production process, for instance, by absorbing. (Para. 0003).
Conclusion
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