DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekberg (USP2019/0160806; Ekberg teaches the claimed structural limitations of the claimed device as evidenced at paragraphs 0048-0051; and figs 1-4) in view of Deckard et al (USPN 5155324).
Applicant is reminded that apparatus/device claims are examined for its structural limitations rather than what the apparatus/device does. See MPEP 2114(II). Here, the functions of the apparatus/device claim have not been given patentable weight since they are not structural.
Regarding claim 1, Ekberg teaches:
Claim 1: A three-dimensional modeling device that models a three-dimensional object by irradiating a modeling material with an energy beam to melt and stack the modeling material, the device comprising:
a beam emitting unit that emits the energy beam having an intensity sufficient to melt the modeling material and irradiates the modeling material with the energy beam (Ekberg: paras 0048-0051; figs 3-4; para. 0051 specifically teaches using the same electron beam for melting and scanning the layer along the same meandering path; applicant is reminded again apparatus claims are examined for its structural limitations); and
a control unit comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the beam emitting unit to irradiate the modeling material (Ekberg: paras 0051, and 0052-0068; figs 3-4; control unit 32 comprises microprocessors for controlling various parts of the AM machine including the electron beam source 30/laser beam source 130, which can be the same energy beam source used for both melting the powder and radiating the build layer surface for analyzing purposes) by:
scanning the energy beam having an intensity sufficient to melt the modeling material in a direction orthogonal to a contour line of a modeling region in at least a contour portion of the modeling region that is a cross-section of the object to model the contour portion of the object at a first intensity and first scanning speed (Ekberg: paras 0048-0051; fig 2 teaches scanning along a contour portion of the modeling region, wherein some of the scans are orthogonal to the contour; it is inherent that the scanning is performed at an intensity/power and speed), and
scanning the energy beam along a certain direction in an inner portion formed inside the contour portion of the modeling region. (Ekberg: paras 0048-0051 and 0052-0068; fig 2 teaches scanning along a contour portion of the modeling region with some of the scans extending from the contour portion into an inner portion of the modeling region; it is inherent that the scanning is performed at an intensity/power and speed).
However, Ekberg does not teach the first intensity and first scanning speed are the same as the second intensity and second scanning speed. Deckard et al teach an additive manufacturing process including sintering/melting each layer by cross-scanning, wherein the sinter/melt scanning starts at an edge portion/contour portion of the build layer, across an internal portion of the build layer, and ends at the opposite edge portion/contour portion of the build layer (col 5:8-17; figs 3a-3b). Deckard et al also teach performing the edge-to-edge sintering/melting at a certain power and speed, i.e. the power and speed are maintained from one edge to the opposite edge including across the inner portion (col 7:15-41; figs 3a-3b). Since Ekberg and Deckard et al are analogous with respect to melt scanning a build layer of an additive manufacturing process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the melt scan of the edge/contour portions and internal portions of Ekberg along the meandering pattern at the same power and speed as taught by Deckard et al in order to ensure consistent melting of the entire build layer.
Regarding claim 3, such is taught by Ekberg (Ekberg: paras 0048-0051 and 0052-0068; fig 2 teaches a plurality of irradiation paths, wherein the paths can be intermittent rather than continuous).
Regarding claim 4, such is taught by Ekberg (Ekberg: paras 0048-0051 and 0052-0068; fig 2 teaches a plurality of irradiation paths).
Regarding claim 5, such is taught by Ekberg (Ekberg: paras 0048-0051, and 0052-0068; fig 2 teaches a plurality of irradiation paths, wherein the paths can be intermittent rather than continuous).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant should note that Ekberg teaches using a single energy source that irradiates an energy beam for both melting the modeling material and analyzing the build layer (para. 0051), and, in order to simplify and reduce time, controlling the movement of the energy beam so the same path, meandering pattern along the main path, is followed during the modeling phase and the analyzing phase (paras. 0020 and 0051; claim 5). By having the energy beam follow the same meandering pattern for both the modeling phase and the analyzing phase, which are at different times (para. 0039), the analyzing phase is made simple and quicker since the control unit does not have to be reprogramed to follow a new path. Furthermore, though Ekberg teaches using different power levels for the melting and analysis scanning operations, this teaching does not imply the power used for the melt scan must vary along the meandering pattern. The parameters for the melt scan is different than the analysis scan.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach various irradiations scanning paths used in additive manufacturing: JPW02015/133138; WO2014010144; JP7-100941; USP2020/0206817; and USPNs 6215093,9597836, and 12162090. USPs 20150246481,10994335, and 20250065407 teach melting/scanning along a meandering pattern.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights