DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/8/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 6-17 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 13-16 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 have been canceled. New claim(s) 18-24 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/8/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4, 6-10, 12, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “determining irradiation locations from the geometric model, each irradiation location corresponding to an intended location of irradiation with the energy beam during a build of the object using the powder bed fusion apparatus; determining, for each irradiation location, a corresponding distance from the irradiation location to a surface of the object as defined in the geometric model.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in powder bed fusion, the location of irradiation with the energy beam during a build of the object using the powder bed fusion apparatus will be the surface of the object. This is consistent with the instant specification which states “the dimensional measure calculated from the geometric model may be comprise a plurality of distances, each distance calculated from the irradiation point to a different point on the surface of the object” (page 5, lines 11-14, emphasis added). The limitation “a corresponding distance from the irradiation location to a surface of the object as defined in the geometric model” will always be zero. Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least some of the exposure parameters varying with the irradiation location, and an amount each exposure parameter varies from the primary exposure parameter being determined, at least in part, from the corresponding distance determined for the irradiation location”. Since the corresponding distance is always zero, and thus constant, it is unclear how an amount each exposure parameter varies from the primary exposure parameter can be determined, at least in part, from the corresponding distance. In other words, it is unclear how a variance can be determined from a constant. Claims 4, 6-10, and 17-24 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 12.
Claim 20 depends from claim 12. Claim 12 states that the distance is from the irradiation location to a surface of the object as defined in a geometric model. Claim 20 attempts to redefine the distance to be a number of solidified layers below the irradiation location. A number is not a distance. A number does not have units, while a distance has units of length. Accordingly, the scope of protection sought is unclear. Claims 21-22 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 20.
Claims 6-7 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 depends from claim 12. Claim 12 states that the distance is from the irradiation location to a surface of the object as defined in the geometric model. Claim 6 states that the distance is a length from the irradiation location to the surface of the object as defined in the geometric model. Accordingly, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 18 depends from claim 12. Claim 12 states that the distance is from the irradiation location to a surface of the object as defined in a geometric model. Claim 18 attempts to redefine the distance to be a measure of thickness of solidified material below the irradiation location. Accordingly, claim 18 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 19 and 7 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 18.
Claim 20 depends from claim 12. Claim 12 states that the distance is from the irradiation location to a surface of the object as defined in a geometric model. Claim 20 attempts to redefine the distance to be a number of solidified layers below the irradiation location. Accordingly, claim 20 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 21-22 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 6-10, 12, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bucknell et al. (US 20180311757 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 6-7, 12, and 17-22, due to the 112(d) rejections above, the limitations of claims 6-7 and 18-22 will be met if the limitations of claim 12 are met, Bucknell teaches that “methods for control systems in AM will be described more fully hereinafter” (which reads upon “a powder bed fusion method, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Bucknell teaches that “powder-bed fusion can include a powder-bed fusion system including an energy beam source that generates an energy beam and a deflector that applies the energy beam to fuse powder material to create a three-dimensional (3-D) object based on an object model” (which reads upon “powder-bed fusion, obtaining a geometric model describing the object to be built using a powder bed fusion apparatus”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0005]). Bucknell teaches that “PBF system 100 can include a depositor 101 that can deposit each layer of metal powder, an energy beam source 103 that can generate an energy beam” (which reads upon “in which an object is built in a layer-by-layer manner by selectively irradiating areas of successively formed powder layers with an energy beam”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0030]). Bucknell teaches that “printing instructions 317 can control printing parameters such as scan rate, beam power, location of beam fusing, etc.” (which reads upon “irradiating a powder layer with the energy beam in accordance with the set of exposure parameters”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0038]; printing instructions include parameters such as beam power). Bucknell teaches that “a portion of powder layer 607 has a thicker powder layer thickness 611 that over a sagging part of build piece 603 and, therefore, is thicker than desired powder layer thickness 609” (paragraph [0056]; the amount of sagging is dependent at least in part on the geometric model describing the object to be built using a powder bed fusion apparatus; the amount of sagging varying with irradiation location, see FIGs. 6A-6C). Bucknell teaches that “modified printing instructions 617 have been generated to compensate for the increased thickness of powder layer 607 over the sagging part of build piece 60” (which reads upon “determining irradiation locations from the geometric model, each irradiation location corresponding to an intended location of irradiation with the energy beam during a build of the object using the powder bed fusion apparatus; determining, for each irradiation location, a corresponding distance from the irradiation location to a surface of the object as defined in the geometric model; determining a set of exposure parameters, which comprises determining an exposure parameter for each irradiation location within a layer to be irradiated with the energy beam from a primary exposure parameter, at least some of the exposure parameters varying with the irradiation location, and an amount each exposure parameter varies from the primary exposure parameter being determined, at least in part, from the corresponding distance determined for the irradiation location”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0056]). Bucknell teaches that “in order to fuse the portion of powder layer 607 with thicker powder layer thickness 611, modified printing instructions 617 instructs energy beam source 613 to increase the beam power to effectuate a higher power energy beam 619 when scanning over the thicker portion of the powder layer” (which reads upon claims 7 and 19; paragraph [0057]). Bucknell teaches that “energy application system can also include a processor 414 and a computer memory 415, such as a RAM, computer storage disk, etc., and that memory 415 can store an object model 416 and printing instructions 417” (which reads upon “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a controller of a powder bed fusion apparatus, cause the controller to control the powder bed fusion apparatus to carry out the method of claim 12”, as recited in instant claim 17; paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Bucknell teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Any value can be chosen for the minimum and maximum such that the parameter value is between them.
Regarding claim 9, Bucknell teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Bucknell teaches that “the feedback loop can compensate for drift and width of the melt vectors such that the geometrical accuracy and print quality is maintained” (paragraph [0029]; melt vector reads on scan path; compensate reads on vary).
Regarding claim 10, Bucknell teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Bucknell teaches that “printing instructions 317 can control printing parameters such as scan rate, beam power, location of beam fusing, etc., and that printing instructions 317 can be determined by processor 314 based on object model 316” (paragraph [0038]). Bucknell teaches that “processor 314 can generate printing instructions 317 by determining the scan rate, beam power, location of beam fusing, etc., to form each slice of build piece 305 based on object model 316, and that energy applicator 310 can receive printing instructions 317 from memory 315 and can apply an energy beam to fuse powder material to create a build piece 305 based on the printing instructions” (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 23, Bucknell teaches the method of claim 8 as stated above. Bucknell teaches that “in order to fuse the portion of powder layer 607 with thicker powder layer thickness 611, modified printing instructions 617 instructs energy beam source 613 to increase the beam power to effectuate a higher power energy beam 619 when scanning over the thicker portion of the powder layer” (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 24, Bucknell teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Bucknell teaches that “modified printing instructions 617 can instruct energy beam source 613 to lower the beam power to effectuate a lower power energy beam 621, which can be the beam power used to fuse powder with desired powder layer thickness 609 completely” (paragraph [0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucknell et al. (US 20180311757 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 4, Bucknell teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Bucknell fails to explicitly state that the changes to the parameters should be gradual. FIG. 6A shows that the difference between the actual powder layer thickness and the desired powder layer thickness varies gradually across the irradiation locations. Since the changes in the parameters are calculated to compensate for the difference between the actual powder layer thickness and the desired powder layer thickness, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters change gradually. Additionally, or alternatively, Bucknell teaches “wherein the compensator is further configured to vary the applied energy by adjusting a speed of the deflector” (claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that changes to the speed of the deflector occur gradually to prevent damage to the deflector and ensure a smooth transition from one parameter to the next.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that this amended claim thus requires that a "corresponding distance" be determined based on two locations determined from the "geometric model" itself, namely (i) the "irradiation location corresponding to an intended location of irradiation with the energy beam" and (ii) a "surface of the object as defined in the geometric model" (remarks, page 11). Applicant argues that this is not taught by Bucknell (remarks, page 11). Applicant further argues that the object model describes the object to be built using an additive manufacturing system (remarks, page 11). Applicant argues that this distance corresponds to the extra powder thickness resulting from deformation of the as-built object, and it is not a determined distance between "irradiation locations [determined] from the geometric model" and "a surface of the object as defined in the geometric model," as required by amended claim 12 (remarks, page 12). This is not found convincing because the shape of the object, including the surface and thus irradiation locations, are defined in the geometric model.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733