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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 02/02/2026.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claim 24 is amended.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/02/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of prior Patent No. 11,548,229, has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach “determining an adjusted surface geometry of the workpiece adjusted from the initial workpiece model such that warping of the workpiece with the adjusted surface geometry expected to occur during or after the additive manufacturing process returns the workpiece to or towards the surface geometry as defined in the initial geometric model.”
In support of said argument, Applicant states in pages 7-8 of the arguments that:
PNG
media_image1.png
708
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
810
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is giving more weight to the claim language than it merits.
Applicant seems to be arguing that the CAD model needs to be updated or adjusted to meet the claim limitation in question. However, the claim language actually states that “determining an adjusted surface geometry of the workpiece adjusted from the initial workpiece model such that warping of the workpiece with the adjusted surface geometry expected to occur during or after the additive manufacturing process returns the workpiece to or towards the surface geometry as defined in the initial geometric model” (Emphasis added by Examiner).
The claim does not state that a model is adjusted, only that an adjusted surface geometry of the workpiece is adjusted. The emphasized claim language implies that the workpiece referenced is the physically fabricated workpiece that is initially manufactured and determined to be warped (i.e. a workpiece that is substandard and deemed to be a test). In other words, the claim language under broadest reasonable interpretation only requires that the workpiece geometry of the manufactured workpiece be adjusted to compensate for warping introduced during manufacturing. As noted by Applicant’s arguments, in Perez, a (test) workpiece is manufactured by additive manufacturing from an initial model, be it that the “initial model” is interpreted as the CAD model or interpreted as the (initial) computational model that incorporates CAD model specification to produce the as-designed workpiece (see P22-24, Perez). Perez, then scans the workpiece and does a comparison to determine whether the printed object meets the design surface specifications and tolerances (i.e. from the initial model(s)) (see p54, p27-28, p8-10, p12, Perez). If it does not meet the specification, then the implication in Perez is that errors have been introduced during the additive manufacturing printing process, and which will be expected to be introduced in any subsequent printing of the workpiece if no adjustment is made. This is why parameters/settings are adjusted in Perez, so as to adjust the workpiece geometry that is printed from an initial model to compensate for printing associated deviations so that the workpiece will print to meet the initial specifications and tolerances as initially defined, including in an initial model, be it the CAD model or in the initial computational model incorporating CAD specifications. It is noted that Sinclair similarly teaches adjusting parameters for printing an object so that the object will be printed as desired. As such, the claim language is met, and the rejection is maintained.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9 , 14, 15, 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2015/0045928 to Perez et al., (hereinafter Perez), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2017/0310935 to Sinclair (hereinafter Sinclair)
Regarding claim 1, Perez teaches a method of building a workpiece using an additive manufacturing process, wherein the workpiece is built up by consolidating material in a layer-by-layer manner (Additive manufacturing of a part object, see Abs., Fig. 5, Perez), the method comprising:
receiving an initial model defining surface geometry of the workpiece (Model input for part to be printed defining dimensional tolerances and requirements including surfaces, see Fig. 5, 22-23, p11, Perez),
determining initial workpiece slices to be consolidated as layers of the workpiece during the additive manufacturing process from the initial geometric model (Model input through slicer that is used to form layer by layer printed part, see Fig. 5, p24, Perez),
building a test workpiece in accordance with the initial workpiece slices using the additive manufacturing process (An initial/test object can be printed, where printing is performed using additive manufacturing and slicer, see p27-28, p8, Fig. 5, Perez),
determining a degree of warping by measuring the test workpiece after an end of the build of the test workpiece (A print is scanned to determine tolerance deviations (i.e. warping), including dimensional accuracy, thus a measure of a degree of warping, see p27-28, p8, 12, 7, Fig. 5, 47, 54, 58, Perez),
determining an adjusted surface geometry of the workpiece adjusted from the initial workpiece model such that warping of the workpiece with the adjusted surface geometry expected to occur during or after the additive manufacturing process returns the workpiece to or towards the surface geometry as defined in the initial geometric model (Feedback based on parts that do not meet tolerance/specification prompts model change adjustments to meet tolerance/specification, with the implication that changes are for returning a printed object towards initially expected defined model, see p58, 54, p27-28, p8, Fig. 5, Perez),
and building the workpiece with the adjusted surface geometry using the additive manufacturing process (Changed model can be used for subsequent print, see p58, 54, p27-28, p8, Fig. 5, Perez).
Although a person of ordinary skill understands that a not meeting dimensional tolerance/accuracy is form of warping, Perez does not explicitly use the term “warped.”
However, Sinclair from the same or similar field of additive manufacturing, more explicitly teaches warping in relation to additive manufacturing (Tolerances are verified for a test component formed by additive manufacturing, where scanning is used in the verification and warpage is determined. A test component is formed and measured by scanning, and a, model and parameters can be adjusted to reproduce an expected object, see p2, p170, p154, 179, 154-187, abs., 187,Sinclair).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by Perez and incorporating consideration of warping, as taught by Sinclair.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better detect a tolerance deviation that can be categorized as warping of a printed object so that the anomalies can be corrected or compensated to produce a component that meets desired specification tolerance accurately as expected (see abs., p2, p170, p154, 179, 154-187, abs., 187,Sinclair).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a test workpiece is built on a build plate and a degree of warping is determined by measuring the test workpiece after an end of the build of the test workpiece with the test workpiece attached to the build plate (Object built on a build surface plate, and scanned for deviation while on the surface, see Fig. 1A, p8, p27-28, p8, 12, 7, Fig. 5, 47, 54, 58, Perez. Note: also taught in Sinclair p154 ).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a build plate is used to establish a datum for measuring a test workpiece (Scanning includes detecting data of a build surface, see Fig. 1B, 25, Perez).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches where a datum is a surface of a build plate (Scanning includes detecting surface data of a build surface, see Fig. 1B, 25, Perez)..
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a datum is an upper surface of a build plate (Scanning includes detecting data of a top side (upper) build surface, see Fig. 1B, 25, Perez).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches comprising carrying out heat treatment on the test workpiece and the degree of warping is determined by measuring the test workpiece after the heat treatment (A test print is carried out with temperature, thus heat treatment, and after print scanning performed for determining if tolerance specification is met, see p8, p27-28, Perez).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches comprising carrying out heat treatment on a test workpiece and a degree of warping is determined by measuring the test workpiece after the heat treatment (A test print is carried out with temperature, thus heat treatment, and after print scanning performed for determining if tolerance specification is met, thus after heat treatment, see p8, p27-28, Perez).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein measuring a test workpiece is carried out using a non-contact measurement probe (Scanning is a visual probing performed without contact, see p12, p27-28, p8, 12, 7, Figs., 47, 54, 58, Perez).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a non-contact probe is an optical non- contact probe (Scanning is a visual probing performed without contact, and optical camera device see p12-13, p27-28, p8, 12, 7, Figs., 47, 54, 58, Perez).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a workpiece is built in a same orientation in a build volume as a test workpiece (Subsequent prints correlated with orientation with the implication that orientation is the same to determine differences, see p27-28, Perez ).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a workpiece is built with a same supports as a test workpiece (Printed test, and subsequent prints, are printed with the same support surface, see Figs 1-2, p8, p27-28, 52, Perez).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a workpiece is built in a same position within a build volume as a test workpiece (Printed test, and subsequent prints, are printed with the same print volume, see p2, Figs 1-2, 16, p8, p27-28, 52, Perez).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein an adjusted surface geometry takes into account a difference in a build of a workpiece and a build of a test workpiece (Change is to calibrate to expected, thus taking into account differences, see p58, p54, p8, Perez. Note: also taught by Sinclair p154-187).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches comprising determining an adjusted surface geometry using a mapping describing how the adjusted surface geometry should be modified based upon a difference between builds (Altered model determined through mapping that provides parameters of how adjustments should be made to provide likelihood that specifications will be met, see p54-55, Perez).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches wherein a difference comprises a difference in a first position of a test workpiece in a build volume in which the test workpiece is built and a second position of a workpiece in the build volume (Positions are compared in verification, thus differences in positions, see p47, p2, Figs 1-2, 16, p8, p27-28, 52, Perez)
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches comprising building a series of test workpieces each based upon an adjusted surface geometry slices determined from a distortion that occurred for a previous one of the test workpieces until surface geometry of one of the test workpieces of the series, after warping, matches that of the initial geometric model within a predefined tolerance (Verification and calibration using test prints, including for dimensional accuracy to meet tolerances, see p8, p28, 58, 54, 27-28, Perez).
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez, in view of Sinclair, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2017/0165921 to Fetter et al., (hereinafter Fetter).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches a degree of warping is determined by measuring the test workpiece (A print is scanned to determine tolerance deviations (i.e. warping), including dimensional accuracy, thus a measure of a degree of warping, see p27-28, p8, 12, 7, Fig. 5, 47, 54, 58, Perez)
Perez does not explicitly teach wherein a workpiece is built on a build plate and a measuring the workpiece after the test workpiece is released from the build plate.
However, Fetter from the same or similar field of additive manufacturing, suggests in a non-preferred situation, wherein a workpiece is built on a build plate and a measuring the workpiece after the test workpiece is released from the build plate (After printing and removing an object from a manufacturing platform, the object can be measured in a downstream measuring machine, see p59, Fetter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by the combination that includes Perez and incorporating measuring an object after removal from a build plate, as taught by Fetter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better measure an object in a device capable of performing measurements, when a manufacturing device is not equipped for performing measurements, or is makes manual measurements more inconvenient(see p59, p3, Fetter).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Perez, Sinclair, and Fetter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez further teaches comprising carrying out heat treatment on a test workpiece and a degree of warping is determined by measuring the test workpiece after the heat treatment (A test print is carried out with temperature, thus heat treatment, and after print scanning performed for determining if tolerance specification is met, thus after heat treatment, see p8, p27-28, Perez).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez does not explicitly teach wherein measuring a test workpiece is carried out on a coordinate positioning machine.
However, Fetter from the same or similar field of additive manufacturing, teaches wherein measuring a test workpiece is carried out on a coordinate positioning machine (Measurements, such as for dimensional accuracy, can be made with a coordinate measuring machine that is a coordinate positioning machine, as noted in the instant specification, see p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, abs. p6, Fetter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by the combination that includes Perez and incorporating a coordinate measuring machine, as taught by Fetter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use a known measuring device that can measure a desired property determining for accuracy of an object (see p5, abs., p6, p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, Fetter).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Perez, Sinclair, and Fetter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fetter further teaches wherein a coordinate positioning machine is a coordinate measuring machine (Measurements, such as for dimensional accuracy, can be made with a coordinate measuring machine that is a coordinate positioning machine, as noted in the instant specification, see p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, abs. p6, Fetter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by the combination that includes Perez and incorporating a coordinate measuring machine, as taught by Fetter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use a known measuring device that can measure a desired property determining for accuracy of an object (see p5, abs., p6, p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, Fetter).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Perez, Sinclair, and Fetter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fetter further teaches wherein a coordinate positioning machine is a machine tool (A coordinate measuring machine is a machine employed as a tool for measuring, hence a machine tool, see p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, abs. p6, Fetter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by the combination that includes Perez and incorporating a coordinate measuring machine tool, as taught by Fetter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better machine that can serve as a tool for measuring a desired property, such as for determining accuracy of an object (see p5, abs., p6, p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, Fetter).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Perez and Sinclair teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez does not explicitly teach wherein measuring a test workpiece is carried out using a contact measurement probe.
However, Fetter from the same or similar field of additive manufacturing, teaches wherein measuring a test workpiece is carried out using a contact measurement probe (Measurements, such as for dimensional accuracy, can be made with a touch contact analog scanning probe of a coordinate measuring machine, see p50-52, p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, abs. p6, Fetter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by the combination that includes Perez and incorporating a contact measurement probe, as taught by Fetter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use a known measuring sensor with a device that can measure a desired property for determining accuracy of an object (see p5, abs., p6, p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, Fetter).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Perez, Sinclair, and Fetter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Fetter further teaches wherein a contact measurement probe is a touch trigger or scanning contact probe (Measurements, such as for dimensional accuracy, can be made with a touch contact scanning probe of a coordinate measuring machine, see p50-52, p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, abs. p6, Fetter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by the combination that includes Perez and incorporating a contact scanning measurement probe, as taught by Fetter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use a known measuring sensor with a device that can measure a desired property for determining accuracy of an object (see p5, abs., p6, p32-36, 40, 51, 38-51, Fetter).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez, in view of Sinclair, in further view of Fetter, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0051862 to Jonas, (hereinafter Jonas).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Perez, Sinclair, and Fetter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Perez does not explicitly teach wherein a coordinate measuring machine is non-Cartesian coordinate positioning machine.
However, Jonas from the same or similar field of object measuring, teaches wherein measuring a test workpiece is carried out on a coordinate positioning machine (A non-cartesian coordinate measuring machine can be used for measuring, see p48, p3, Jonas).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive manufacturing as described by the combination that includes Perez and incorporating a non-Cartesian coordinate measuring machine, as taught by Jonas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use a known measuring device that can measure a desired property of an object that can be substituted for equivalent known measuring machine (see p3, p48-50, Jonas).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Avula et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2017/0255171 teaches additive manufacturing, and “[m]ore particularly, 3D printing at a design center may be used to prototype form and mating changes of a design of an object prior to placing an order for mass quantities of the object under test, thereby reducing the design time cycle of products using 3D printed prototype objects. Furthermore, 3D printing at the design center may be used to validate a 3D design for an object so that the object may readily be produced by 3D printers and used in a device. For example, the mating of the object with an associated device according to the parameters of the design of the object may be tested and the parameters of the design adjusted until an object produced according to the design mates with the associated device as desired.”
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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117