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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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: “control device” in claims 28-33.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The “control device” of claims 28-33 is inadequately described in the specification. The drawings disclose an empty box 18 for the control device and the specification only mentions the control device in regards to the function and in no way describes what constitutes a control device (see for example page 12, lines 5-9 and 23-28, page 13, line 36 – page 14, line 2, and page 14, lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 34, its dependence on inadequately described claim 28 renders the claim itself inadequately described.
Claims 20 and 29 (second alternative) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no description as to how the plane of incidence of the linearly polarized laser radiation on an inner wall surface of a capillary extending from a surface of the raw material powder layer into a volume of the raw material powder layer is detected or determined during processing in order to provide a variable from which the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is controlled depends.
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) 18, 23, 28, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunze et al. (20200023467). Hunze et al. discloses (claim 18) a method of operating an irradiation system 4 for irradiating layers of a raw material powder 3 with laser radiation in order to produce a three-dimensional work piece (paragraph [0001]), wherein at least a section of a raw material powder layer applied onto a carrier (Fig. 1, not numbered) is selectively irradiated with linearly polarized laser radiation (paragraphs [0039] and [0041]), and wherein an orientation of a plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is controlled in dependence on an orientation of a plane of incidence of the linearly polarized laser radiation on the raw material (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 23, Hunze et al. discloses that at least one of a power, a focus diameter and a focus shape of a beam of linearly polarized laser radiation and/or at least one of a scan speed, a scan direction, a scan mode and a scan pattern according to which the beam of linearly polarized laser radiation is directed across the raw material powder layer and/or at least one parameter of a gas flow directed across the raw material powder layer is controlled in dependence on an angle of incidence of the beam of linearly polarized laser radiation on the raw material (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 28, Hunze et al. discloses an irradiation system 4 for irradiating layers of a raw material powder 3 with laser radiation in order to produce a three-dimensional work piece (paragraph [0001]), wherein the irradiation system is configured to selectively irradiate at least a section of a raw material powder layer applied onto a carrier (Fig. 1, not numbered) with linearly polarized laser radiation (paragraphs [0039] and [0041]), and wherein the irradiation system comprises a control device 12 which is configured to control an orientation of a plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation in dependence on an orientation of a plane of incidence of the linearly polarized laser radiation on the raw material (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 32 (first alternative), Hunze et al. discloses that the control device is configured:- to control at least one of a power, a focus diameter and a focus shape of a beam of linearly polarized laser radiation and/or at least one of a scan speed, a scan direction, a scan mode and a scan pattern according to which the beam of linearly polarized laser radiation is directed across the raw material powder layer and/or at least one parameter of a gas flow directed across the raw material powder layer in dependence on an angle of incidence of the beam of linearly polarized laser radiation on the raw material (paragraph [0036]);
Regarding claim 34, Hunze et al. discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) for producing a three-dimensional work piece (paragraph [0001]) which is equipped with the irradiation system 4.
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.
Claims 19, 20, as far as it is described, 27, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunze et al., as applied to claims 18 and 28 above, in view of Milne et al. (20160246050). Regarding claims 19 and 29, Hunze et al. discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is controlled in dependence on the orientation of the plane of incidence of the linearly polarized laser radiation on the raw material such that the plane of polarization is oriented substantially parallel to the plane of incidence.
Milne et al. teaches for a method of operating an irradiation system 300 for irradiating layers of a raw material powder with laser radiation and that (claims 19 and 29) the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is controlled in dependence on the orientation of the plane of incidence of the linearly polarized laser radiation on the raw material such that the plane of polarization is oriented substantially parallel to the plane of incidence (optimizing polarization) for the purposes of efficiently and reliably irradiating the substrate even in the presence of impurities or defects on or in the substrate (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Since Hunze et al. and Milne et al. are both in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Milne et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Hunze et al. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hunze et al. such that that the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is controlled in dependence on the orientation of the plane of incidence of the linearly polarized laser radiation on the raw material such that the plane of polarization is oriented substantially parallel to the plane of incidence for the purposes of efficiently and reliably irradiating the substrate even in the presence of impurities or defects on or in the substrate.
Regarding claim 20, as far as it is described, Milne et al. further teaches that the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is formed ((optimizing polarization) due to an interaction of the linearly polarized laser radiation with the raw material 1 (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claims 27 and 33, Milne et al. further teaches for a plurality of beams 26,30 of linearly polarized laser radiation (by polarizer 22) are scanned across an overlap section of the raw material powder layer according to a scan strategy (paragraph [0031]), wherein all scan vectors are scanned according to the same scan mode (paragraph [0039]).
Claims 21, 22, 24-26, 30, 31, and 32 (second alternative) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunze et al., as applied to claims 18 and 28 above, in view of Milne et al. and Roehling et al. (20190381602). Hunze et al. as modified by Milne et al. discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation being updated in dependence on a scan direction of the linearly polarized laser radiation across the raw material powder layer, wherein the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation being updated based on an analysis of a scan pattern according to which the beam of linearly polarized laser radiation is directed across the raw material powder layer, wherein the analysis of the scan pattern is performed prior to starting the production of the three-dimensional work piece and/or in situ during the production of the three-dimensional work piece, that a plurality of scan vectors pointing in a first vector direction are successively scanned, before at least one scan vector pointing in a second vector direction which differs from the first vector direction is scanned, a second section of the raw material powder layer is selectively irradiated with randomized laser radiation, radially polarized laser radiation and/or azimuthally polarized laser radiation, the first section of the raw material powder layer is a hatch section of a work piece layer generated by selectively irradiating the raw material powder layer and/or wherein the second section of the raw material powder layer is a contour section of a work piece layer generated by selectively irradiating the raw material powder layer.
Roehling et al. teaches in paragraph [0004] that “During laser-based processing of materials such as powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing (AM), processing parameters including but not limited to laser power, scan speed, scan pattern, and hatch spacing have typically been optimized to improve geometrical accuracy and reduce defect concentrations.”. Therefore, scan direction, scan strategies, and scan pattern are considered results effective variables.
Since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), it would have been obvious a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the irradiation system of Hunze et al. such that the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is updated in dependence on a scan direction of the linearly polarized laser radiation across the raw material powder layer, wherein the orientation of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized laser radiation is updated based on an analysis of a scan pattern according to which the beam of linearly polarized laser radiation is directed across the raw material powder layer, and the analysis of the scan pattern is performed prior to starting the production of the three-dimensional work piece and/or in situ during the production of the three-dimensional work piece.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other methods of operating irradiation systems for irradiating layers of a raw material powder with laser radiation in order to produce three-dimensional work pieces.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
February 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights