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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “he” should read “the” in the Claim 15 (Line 4 of Claim 15).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is obvious in view of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042, as shown in the table and described below.
Instant application 18/114,144
U.S. Patent No. 11858042
Claim 1: A method of operating an additive manufacturing system, comprising:
determining, by processing image data, at least two characteristics of an active processing area while depositing a layer of a part being additively manufactured;
and performing closed loop control of at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system in order to modify the at least two characteristics of the active processing area while depositing the layer of the part being additively manufactured
Claim 1: A method for optimizing process parameters for additive manufacturing, comprising:
measuring one or more characteristics of a melt pool while additively manufacturing a first part using an additive manufacturing apparatus according to a build file comprising machine code defining a plurality of process parameters;
determining a change to at least one process parameter of the plurality of process parameters, wherein the determined change is configured to alter the one or more characteristics of the melt pool;
determining at least one modified process parameter based on the determined change;
modifying the build file based on the determined change to the at least one process parameter to generate a modified build file; and additively manufacturing a second part using the additive manufacturing apparatus according to the modified build file, wherein:
additively manufacturing the first part is performed in a closed-loop control mode,
and additively manufacturing the second part is performed in an open-loop control mode.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the change to the at least one process parameter of the plurality of process parameters comprises: receiving sensor data from a sensor while additively manufacturing the first part, wherein the sensor is configured to measure the one or more characteristics of the melt pool; and determining the change based on the sensor data, wherein the closed-loop control mode is based at least in part on the sensor data.
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the sensor comprises one of: a melt-pool temperature sensor; a melt-pool size sensor; a layer height sensor; a working distance sensor; a powder flow sensor; an image sensor; a substrate temperature sensor; or an acoustic sensor.
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042 discloses the invention of instant claim 1 as shown in the table above, except for wherein at least two characteristics being determined by processing image data, and wherein a closed loop control of at least two processing parameters being performed.
However, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042 discloses wherein one or more characteristics are determined by processing data from an image sensor; and discloses wherein a closed loop control of at least one processing parameter is performed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least two characteristics are determined by processing image data, and wherein a closed loop control of at least two processing parameters is performed, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); in Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997); and in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of the instant application is obvious in view of claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042, as shown in the table and described below.
Instant application 18/114,144
U.S. Patent No. 11858042
Claim 16: A processing system, comprising:
a memory comprising computer-executable instructions;
and a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to:
determine, by processing image data, at least two characteristics of an active processing area while depositing a layer of a part being additively manufactured;
and perform closed loop control of at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system in order to modify the at least two characteristics of the active processing area while depositing the layer of the part being additively manufactured.
Claim 16. A processing system, comprising:
a memory comprising computer-executable instructions;
and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to:
measure one or more characteristics of a melt pool while additively manufacturing a first part using an additive manufacturing apparatus according to a build file comprising machine code defining a plurality of process parameters;
determine a change to at least one process parameter of the plurality of process parameters, wherein the determined change is a configured to alter the one or more characteristics of the melt pool; determine at least one modified process parameter based on the determined change;
modify the build file based on the determined change to the at least one process parameter to generate a modified build file; and
additively manufacture a second part using the additive manufacturing apparatus according to the modified build file, wherein:
additively manufacturing the first part is performed in a closed-loop control mode,
and additively manufacturing the second part is performed in an open-loop control mode.
Claim 17. The processing system of claim 16, wherein in order to determine the change to the at least one process parameter of the plurality of process parameters, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the processing system to: receive sensor data from a sensor while additively manufacturing the first part wherein the sensor is configured to measure the one or more characteristics of the melt pool; and determine the change based on the sensor data, wherein the closed-loop control mode is based at least in part on the sensor data.
Claim 18. The processing system of claim 17, wherein the sensor comprises one of: a melt-pool temperature sensor; a melt-pool size sensor; a layer height sensor; a working distance sensor; a powder flow sensor; an image sensor; a substrate temperature sensor; or an acoustic sensor.
Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042 discloses the invention of instant claim 16 as shown in the table above, except for wherein at least two characteristics being determined by processing image data, and wherein a closed loop control of at least two processing parameters being performed.
However, claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11858042 discloses wherein one or more characteristics are determined by processing data from an image sensor; and discloses wherein a closed loop control of at least one processing parameter is performed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least two characteristics are determined by processing image data, and wherein a closed loop control of at least two processing parameters is performed, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); in Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997); and in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehr et al. (US-2018-0341248).
Regarding claim 1, Mehr discloses a method (method, para. 0002) of operating an additive manufacturing system (additive manufacturing deposition apparatus, para. 0021), comprising:
determining, by processing image data (images, para. 0121, or image data, para. 0122), at least two characteristics (process characterization, para. 0003; which includes process parameters, para. 0102, and object properties, para. 0129) of an active processing area (melt pool, para. 0051, fig. 2) while depositing a layer (layer, para. 0051, fig. 2) of a part (part, para. 0043) being additively manufactured (Image sensors or machine vision systems and their associated image process provide automatic inspection and analysis to determine process parameters or object properties of the deposition in real-time, see paras 0007, 0120-0123); and
performing closed loop control (feedback loop, para. 0042; or feedback control, para. 0080) of at least two processing parameters (process control parameters, para. 0002, para. 0052) of the additive manufacturing system in order to modify the at least two characteristics of the active processing area while depositing the layer of the part being additively manufactured (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process characterization data is modified and updated after performing step (d) for each iteration, see paras. 0002 and 0003.).
Regarding claim 2, Mehr discloses wherein:
a first characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a height (height, para. 0052) of the active processing area,
a first processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a scan rate (traverse speed, para. 0052) of a deposition element (laser processing head, para. 0051) of the additive manufacturing system,
the scan rate of the deposition element is configured to control, at least in part, the height of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.),
a second processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a power level (power, para. 0052) of a directed energy element (laser, para. 0052) of the additive manufacturing system,
a second characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a width (width, para. 0052) of the active processing area, and
the power level of the directed energy element is configured to control, at least in part, the width of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.).
Regarding claim 3, Mehr discloses wherein:
a first characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a height (height, para. 0052) of the active processing area,
a first processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a scan rate (traverse speed, para. 0052) of a deposition element (laser processing head, para. 0051) of the additive manufacturing system,
the scan rate of the deposition element is configured to control, at least in part, the height of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.),
a second processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a power level (power, para. 0180) of a directed energy element (laser, para. 0180) of the additive manufacturing system,
a second characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a temperature (temperature, para. 0013) of the active processing area, and
the power level of the directed energy element is configured to control, at least in part, the temperature of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.).
Regarding claim 4, Mehr discloses wherein:
a first characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a height (height, para. 0052) of the active processing area,
a first processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a material feed rate (wire feed rate, para. 52) of the additive manufacturing system,
the material feed rate of the deposition element is configured to control, at least in part, the height of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.),
a second processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a power level (power, para. 0052) of a directed energy element (laser, para. 0052) of the additive manufacturing system,
a second characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a width (width, para. 0052) of the active processing area, and
the power level of the directed energy element is configured to control, at least in part, the width of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.).
Regarding claim 5, Mehr discloses wherein:
a first characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a height (height, para. 0052) of the active processing area,
a first processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a material feed rate (wire feed rate, para. 52) of a deposition element of the additive manufacturing system,
the material feed rate of the deposition element is configured to control, at least in part, the height of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.),
a second processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a power level (power, para. 0180) of a directed energy element (laser, para. 0180) of the additive manufacturing system,
a second characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a temperature (temperature, para. 0013) of the active processing area, and
the power level of the directed energy element is configured to control, at least in part, the temperature of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.).
Regarding claim 6, Mehr discloses wherein:
a first characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a height (height, para. 0052) of the active processing area,
a first processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a material feed rate (wire feed rate, para. 52) of a deposition element of the additive manufacturing system,
the material feed rate of the deposition element is configured to control, at least in part, the height of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.),
a second processing parameter (process control parameters, para. 0002) of the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system is a power level (power, para. 0116) of a directed energy element (laser, para. 0116) of the additive manufacturing system,
a second characteristic (process characterization, para. 0003) of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area is a cooling rate (cooling rate, para. 0113) of the active processing area, and
the power level of the directed energy element is configured to control, at least in part, the cooling rate of the active processing area (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process control parameters are output from step (c) and input to step (d) to control the process characterization while performing the deposition or joining process in step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.).
Regarding claim 7, Mehr discloses wherein performing closed loop control of the at least two processing parameters comprises:
determining a current value for each of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area (Current process characterization data are determined by one or more process monitoring tools, see paras 0111-0123.);
determining a desired value for each of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area (Desired process characterization data are determined by performing various tools such as 3D CAD, Process Simulation, see paras 0083-0106.); and
modifying each of the at least two processing parameters to achieve the desired value for each of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area (Part of Step (c), where the process control parameters are optimized and changed for each iteration of the feedback loop, see para. 0002.).
Regarding claim 8, Mehr discloses wherein modifying each of the at least two processing parameters comprises:
providing the current value for each of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area and the desired value for each of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area to a machine learning model (Step (b), para. 0002); and
receiving, from the machine learning model, set points for the at least two processing parameters (Part of Step (c), where the updated process control parameters are received after being derived from a machine learning algorithm, see para. 0002.).
Regarding claim 14, Mehr discloses further comprising selecting a subsequent layer of the part being additively manufactured based on at least one of the at least two characteristics of the active processing area (A software-driven process is performed for slicing a digital 3D stereolithography model into discrete layers and then using that information to program the path for the next layer of material deposition based on at least one of the at least two characteristics, such as height of the melt pool , which is a core part of the additive manufacturing process, see para. 0085.).
Regarding claim 15, Mehr discloses further comprising:
logging as operational data the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system and the at least two characteristics of the active processing area (Process characterization data and process control parameters are recorded automated as daily activities for real-time monitoring, analysis, and troubleshooting, see paras 0004, 0005, thus logging as operational data.); and
training a machine learning model (machine learning algorithm, para. 0002) to predict the at least two characteristics of the active processing area based on the at least two processing parameters of the additive manufacturing system (Training of a machine learning model for predicting process characterization data, see paras 0139, 0142.).
Regarding claim 16, Mehr discloses a processing system (system, para. 0004), comprising:
a memory (memory, para. 0005) comprising computer-executable instructions (para. 0168); and
a processor (processor, para. 0004) configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (para. 0168) and cause the processing system to:
determining, by processing image data (images, para. 0121, or image data, para. 0122), at least two characteristics (process characterization, para. 0003; which includes process parameters, para. 0102, and object properties, para. 0129.) of an active processing area (melt pool, para. 0051, fig. 2) while depositing a layer (layer, para. 0051, fig. 2) of a part (part, para. 0043) being additively manufactured (Image sensors or machine vision systems and their associated image process provide automatic inspection and analysis to determine process parameters or object properties of the deposition in real-time, see paras 0007, 0120-0123.); and
performing closed loop control (feedback loop, para. 0042; or feedback control, para. 0080) of at least two processing parameters (process control parameters, paras 0002 and 0052) of the additive manufacturing system in order to modify the at least two characteristics of the active processing area while depositing the layer of the part being additively manufactured (Steps (b) to (d) are performed iteratively as a feedback loop, where the process characterization data is modified and updated after performing step (d) for each iteration, see paras 0002 and 0003.).
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehr et al. (US-2018-0341248).
Regarding claim 9, Mehr discloses further comprising:
determining a location (para. 0113) of the active processing area based on the first subset of image data (fig.7 shows the location of the melting pool determined based on the image and image analysis, para. 0121.);
determining a width (para. 0052) of the active processing area based on the second subset of image data (fig. 6B, para. 0118).
Mehr does not expressly disclose receiving a first subset of the image data from a first camera laterally and vertically offset from the active processing area.
However, Mehr discloses receiving a subset of three-dimensional image data from a machine vision system [para. 0121 and Fig.7]. Moreover, Mehr discloses to apply feature extraction algorithms to the three-dimensional image data for transforming data in the high-dimensional space to a space of fewer dimensions [para. 0152 and fig. 7C], and teaches that automated feature extraction allows one to correlate part features with build-time actions [para. 0025].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising receiving a first subset of the image data from a first camera laterally and vertically offset from the active processing area, in order to make the first camera meet the necessary requirement of having an offset in optical path to record three-dimensional images of the melt pool, then to receive such images for further automated feature extraction with algorithms to realize correlating melt pool features with build-time actions as taught by Mehr.
Mehr does not expressly disclose receiving a second subset of the image data from a second camera vertically offset from the active processing area and having a field of view coaxial with a deposition element of the additive manufacturing system.
However, Mehr discloses receiving a second subset of the image data [para. 0118, fig.6A] from a laser interferometry [para. 0115]. Mehr teaches that a laser interferometry is an optical monitoring system specially designed for integration of the optical measuring laser beam into the same optical path of the deposition element [para. 0115], which is vertically offset from the active processing area and having a field of view coaxial with a deposition element (laser processing head, para. 0051) of the additive manufacturing system (fig. 6A, para. 0118). Concerning the function of optical monitoring melt pool dimensions, refractive index changes, and surface irregularities of a melt pool, a laser interferometry is an equivalent of a camera vertically offset from the active processing area and having a field of view coaxial with a deposition element to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising receiving a second subset of the image data from a second camera vertically offset from the active processing area and having a field of view coaxial with a deposition element of the additive manufacturing system, by replacing a laser interferometry with a camera vertically offset from the active processing area and having a field of view coaxial with a deposition element. This is substituting equivalents of optical monitoring system known for the same purpose to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2144.06-II.
Regarding claim 10, Mehr does not expressly disclose further comprising receiving a third subset of the image data from a third camera laterally and vertically offset from the active processing area and laterally offset from the first camera.
However, Mehr discloses that one or more machine vision system may be configured to acquire images in the x-ray region, ultraviolet region, visible region, near infrared region, infrared region, terahertz region, microwave region, or radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum, or any combination thereof [para. 0123]. Particularly, Mehr discloses an example of monitoring and extracting defect features of a metal pool by using a third subset of the image data from a third camera [fig. 16]. The images in fig.16 from the third camera shows being different in center of vision, dimension of the melt pool, eye-level horizon and vertical lines from the images in fig. 7 from the first camera. In addition, Mehr teaches that automated feature extraction using algorithms allows one to correlate part features from images with build-time actions [para. 0025].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving a third subset of the image data from a third camera laterally and vertically offset from the active processing area and laterally offset from the first camera, in order to make the first and third cameras have different offsets in optical path relative to the melt pool so that to record different three-dimensional images of the melt pool for automated feature extraction with algorithms to realize correlating different melt pool features with build-time actions as taught by Mehr.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehr et al. (US-2018-0341248) in view of Hofmeister et al. (Video monitoring and control of the LENS process, No. SAND99-1990C, Sandia National Lab, 1999.).
Regarding claim 11, Mehr does not expressly disclose wherein the first camera comprises a filter configured to reduce image artifacts from the active processing area.
Hofmeister discloses to use a narrow bandpass optical filter to remove the effects of radiation on thermal images [Sec. Experimental Procedures, ll. 2-4, fig. 2].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first camera comprises a filter configured to reduce image artifacts from the active processing area, in order to remove the effects of radiation leading to image artifacts as taught by Hofmeister.
Regarding claim 13, Mehr does not expressly disclose further comprising measuring a cooling rate of the active processing area using one or more infrared cameras.
Hofmeister teaches measuring a cooling rate of the melt pool [fig. 8] using one digital camera with an infrared optical filter [Sec. Experimental Procedures, ll. 2-4, fig. 2].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings by Hofmeister further comprising measuring a cooling rate of the melt pool using one or more infrared cameras, in order to measure and incorporate the cooling rate of the melt pool into the closed loop control to optimize the operation of an additive manufacturing system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehr et al. (US-2018-0341248) in view of Felice (US-5772323).
Regarding claim 12, Mehr does not expressly disclose further comprising measuring a temperature of the active processing area comprises using one or more pyrometers. Mehr discloses that a temperature of the metal pool (corresponding to the active processing area of the claimed invention) may be monitored using one or more infrared wavelength cameras [Para. 0129].
However, Felice discloses a pyrometer that is an infrared wavelength camera for measuring temperature with a demonstrated enhanced resolution and repeatability pertinent to the measured temperature of the radiating body [Abstract; col.8, ll.24-28; col.11, ll.34-47].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising measuring a temperature of the active processing area comprises using one or more pyrometers, in order to enhance resolution and repeatability of the measured temperature of the active processing area as taught by Felice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zunjing J. Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-0762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/ Zunjing J. Wang /Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761