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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10 and 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 February 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the intensity profile as a Gaussian, non-Gaussian, constant, asymmetric or distorted intensity profile” or claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form but instead uses the same legal phraseology as claim 1. Recommend breaking up the sentence into multiple sentences. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend amending claim 1 to recite: “…of the component part…” (lines 11-12).
Recommend deleting the comma and inserting a period at the end of claim 11.
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/149,175 (reference application) in view of Clark et al. (US-20120267345-A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following table:
Instant Application
Application No. 18/149,175
1. A manufacturing device for additive manufacturing of a component part from a powder material, the device comprising
a beam generating device configured to generate an energy beam,
a scanner device configured to displace the energy beam to a plurality of irradiation positions in order to produce the component part from the powder material arranged in the work region using the energy beam,
a deflection device configured to displace the energy beam to a plurality of beam positions at an irradiation position of the plurality of irradiation positions within a beam region, and
a control device operatively connected to the deflection device and configured to control the deflection device and
to change a beam profile of the beam region during production of a component part by changing a control of the deflection device.
1. A manufacturing device for additive manufacturing of component parts from a powder material, comprising
a beam producing device configured to produce an energy beam,
a scanner device configured to displace the energy beam to a plurality of irradiation positions within a work region in order to produce a component part from the powder material arranged in the work region by means of the energy beam,
a deflection device configured to displace the energy beam at an irradiation position of the plurality of irradiation positions within a beam region to a plurality of beam positions, and
a control device operatively connected to the deflection device and configured to control the deflection device and to produce a specific intensity profile in the beam region by
a.) dividing the energy beam in order to displace the energy beam simultaneously to at least two beam positions, wherein a distance between these two beam positions is variably settable in at least one direction, and/or by
b.) displacing the energy beam within the beam region and by specifying at least one operating parameter of the deflection device selected from a group consisting of: a residence time at a beam position, a beam position density distribution in the beam region, a frequency distribution of the beam positions, and an intensity influencing parameter for influencing the intensity of the energy beam deflected in each case to the beam positions.
4. The manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to additionally specify a shape of the beam region by controlling the deflection device.
Claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/149,175 do not explicitly disclose a control device configured to change a beam profile during production of a component part.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Clark teaches a control device (comparator means 42, fig. 1; “computer,” para 0047) configured to change a beam profile (figs. 3-15) during production of a component part (paras 0028 and 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/149,175, in view of the teachings of Clark, by changing a beam profile, as taught in figs. 3-6 of Clark, which is based on the selection of shape of the beam region during the production of component parts, as taught by claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/149,175, in order to achieve a variety of cross-sectional shapes and predetermined energy distributions, for the advantage of reducing optics set up time and enabling increased deposition rates (Clark, paras 0012, 0028, and 0035).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the following:
“beam generating device” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “beam generating” and “configured to generate an energy beam.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “laser.” Claim 12 has sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for this claim.
“deflection device” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “deflection” and “configured to displace the energy beam.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes an “acousto-optic deflector.” Claim 9 has sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for this claim.
“control device” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “control” and “configured to control the deflection device … by changing a control of the deflection device.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “computer.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “abruptly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abruptly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, the metes and bounds are unclear between a deflection device that is configured to “abruptly” displace an energy beam versus a deflection is configured to “not abruptly” displace an energy beam. For example, is displacement that lasts 5 seconds considered to be an abrupt displacement or a not abrupt displacement? For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as: “…wherein the deflection device is configured to
Claim 5 recites: “wherein the control device is configured to predefine the shape of the beam region as a shape selected from a group consisting of: a rotationally symmetrical shape a circle shape, a ring shape, a torus shape, a polygon, a rectangle, an elongated shape, a line shape, an irregular shape, and a point shape.” It is unclear what the closed alternatives are for this Markush group. For example, is a “rotationally symmetrical shape” one of the alternatives or is “a rotationally symmetrical shape a circle shape” one of the alternatives (there is no comma)? It is also unclear how some of the shapes can be considered alternatives. For example, a ring shape is a torus shape (and vica versa). Additionally, all of the recited shaped except for the irregular shape are rotationally symmetrical shapes. Furthermore, a rectangle can be considered a polygon, an elongated shape, or an irregular shape. As a result, the claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the Markush group are unclear (MPEP 2117).
Claim 5 recites “the shape.” Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3, which recites “…wherein the control device is configured to change a shape of the beam region and/or an intensity profile in the beam region during the production of the component part.” Because “shape” is recited as an alternative in claim 3, it is unclear if claim 5 needs to be satisfied in the event that the “intensity profile” is satisfied from claim 3. Recommend positively reciting the “shape” limitation from claim 3 within claim 5.
Furthermore, claim 5 recites a closed list of alternatives of “the shape” from claim 3. Claim 3 recites “wherein the control device is configured to change a shape of the beam region.” It is unclear if the closed list of alternatives in claim 5 applies to the initial shape of the beam region in claim 3 (the shape before the change), the changed shape of the beam region in claim 3 (the shape after the change), or both (the shape before the change and the shape after the change). Recommend clarifying how the scope of the “shape” in claim 5 relates to the shape change configuration that is required in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is a “use” claim that does not further limit the structure of claim 1. The claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any structural limitations that delimit the structure of the device. Specifically, the claim is directed to an intended purpose, “the additive manufacturing,” that is included within the preamble of claim 1 and not to any of the structural limitations that are within the body of claim 1. Recommend attributing the limitations of claim 13 to the structure that is recited within the body of claim 1 instead of an intended use within the preamble of claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US-20120267345-A1) in view of Kotler et al. (US-20220121082-A1, effective filing date of 6 March 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Clark teaches a manufacturing device (fig. 1) for additive manufacturing (“powder bed deposition,” para 0027) of a component part (“component,” para 0027) from a powder material (“powdered material,” para 0027), the device comprising
a beam generating device (laser 12, fig. 1) configured to generate an energy beam (beams 14 and 20, fig. 1),
a scanner device (movable mirrors 26 and 28, fig. 1) configured to displace the energy beam (para 0023) to a plurality of irradiation positions (where the beam 20 meets the working region 56, fig. 1) in order to produce the component part from the powder material arranged in the work region using the energy beam (para 0027),
a deflection device (deformable means 22, fig. 1) configured to displace the energy beam to a plurality of beam positions (“adjusting the cross sectional shape of the beam 20,” para 0023; adjusting the cross section shape of the beam as shown in figs. 3-15 is construed as displacing the energy beam to a plurality of beam positions) at an irradiation position of the plurality of irradiation positions (where the beam 20 meets the working region 56, fig. 1) within a beam region (working region 56, fig. 1), and
a control device (comparator means 42, fig. 1; “computer,” para 0047) operatively connected to the deflection device (deformable means 22, fig. 1) and configured to control the deflection device (controlled through signal 44, fig. 1) and to change a beam profile of the beam region during production of a component part (“alter the surface profile of the deformable reflective means 22 and thus adjust the cross sectional shape of the beam 20 to thereby generate a variety of predetermined cross sectional shapes of working region 56 while the beam 20 is being directed onto the substrate 32 ,” para 0028; “the energy intensity profile of the energy beam 20 is also adjusted during the manufacturing process,” para 0035) by changing a control of the deflection device (the deformable means 22 is controlled through control of the actuator 24, fig. 1; para 0023).
Clark, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
954
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clark does not explicitly disclose a deflection device (deflection device is interpreted based on 35 USC 112(f) as an acousto-optic deflector; Clark does not explicitly disclose an acousto-optic deflector).
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of switching between beam profiles during individual production processes, Kotler teaches a deflection device (drive circuit 26, deflectors 24 and 44, beam stop 38, and array 30, fig. 1; deflectors 24 and 44 are acousto-optical deflectors, para 0033).
Kotler, fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
1092
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Clark, in view of the teachings of Kotler, by using the drive circuit 26, deflectors 24 and 44, beam stop 38, and array 30, as taught by Kotler, instead of the actuator 24 and the deformable mirror 22, as taught by Clark, in order to use a drive circuit that is configured to dynamically switch the spatial profile of an input laser beam to any one of a number of different output beam profiles with a switching time that is less than 10 μs, for the advantage of using an adaptive mechanism that permits on-the-fly manipulation of the beam shape (Kotler, paras 0022-0023).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Clark in view of Kotler as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Kotler teaches wherein the deflection device (drive circuit 26, deflectors 24 and 44, beam stop 38, and array 30, fig. 1) is configured to displace the energy beam to the plurality of discrete beam positions (“from any profile to any other profile in the set, with fast switching times between the different profiles, typically less than 10 μs,” para 0023).
Regarding claim 3, Clark teaches wherein the control device (comparator means 42, fig. 1) is configured to change a shape of the beam region (figs. 3-6, para 0029) and/or an intensity profile in the beam region (figs. 7-15, para 0036-0037) during the production of the component part (paras 0028 and 0035).
Regarding claim 4, Clark teaches wherein the control device (comparator means 42, fig. 1) is configured to predefine (“predefine” is understood in view of the Specification broadly as having the same meaning as “determine,” i.e. “predefine” does not mean “pre-program,” e.g., the Specification disclose that “position values and predefined values for the beam profile are calculated,” which suggests that the values are not pre-programmed but instead are calculated or determined during the execution of a program) the beam profile (figs. 3-15; “predetermined,” para 0024) depending on an instantaneous irradiation position within the component part to be produced (the working region 56 is construed as being occurring at least within an instant, as shown in fig. 1; figs. 3-15 depend on the desired shapes in the working region 56, paras 0027-0037).
Regarding claim 5, Clark teaches wherein the control device (comparator means 42, fig. 1) is configured to predefine the shape (figs. 3-5) of the beam region as a shape selected from a group consisting of: a rotationally symmetrical shape a circle shape (fig. 3), a ring shape, a torus shape, a polygon (fig. 6), a rectangle (fig. 4), an elongated shape (fig. 5), a line shape, an irregular shape, and a point shape (Clark teaches where the shape is one of a circle, polygon, rectangle, or elongated shape, which is selected from within the closed grouping).
Regarding claim 6, Clark teaches wherein the control device (comparator means 42, fig. 1) is configured to generate the intensity profile (figs. 7-15) as a Gaussian (figs. 7-8 are construed as being Gaussian because of their bell-shaped curves), non-Gaussian (fig. 9 is bimodal, which is construed as being a non-Gaussian shape), constant (fig. 10), asymmetric or distorted intensity profile (figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 7, Clark teaches wherein the control device (comparator means 42, fig. 1) is configured to predefine (“predefine” is understood in view of the Specification broadly as having the same meaning as “determine,” i.e. “predefine” does not mean “pre-program,” e.g., the Specification disclose that “position values and predefined values for the beam profile are calculated,” which suggests that the values are not pre-programmed but instead are calculated or determined during the execution of a program) the beam profile (figs. 3-15; “predetermined,” para 0024) depending on an instantaneous irradiation position within the component part to be produced (the working region 56 is construed as being occurring at least within an instant, as shown in fig. 1; figs. 3-15 depend on the desired shapes in the working region 56, paras 0027-0037) in such a way that the beam profile projected on the work region corresponds to a predefined projected beam profile (figs. 3-15 are “predetermined,” para 0024, and are construed as being predefined beam profiles).
Regarding claim 8, Clark teaches wherein the deflection device (deformable means 22, fig. 1)
is arranged upstream of the scanner device (movable mirrors 26 and 28, fig. 1) in a direction of propagation of the energy beam (beams 14 and 20, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Clark in view of Kotler as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Kotler teaches wherein the deflection device (drive circuit 26, deflectors 24 and 44, beam stop 38, and array 30, fig. 1) comprises at least one acousto-optic deflector (deflectors 24 and 44 are acousto-optical deflectors, para 0033).
Regarding claim 12, Clark teaches wherein the beam generating device includes a laser (laser 12, fig. 1).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US-20120267345-A1) in view of Kotler et al. (US-20220121082-A1, effective filing date of 6 March 2019) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Krol et al. (US-20210354372-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Clark teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the scanner device comprises at least one of a galvanometer scanner, a piezo-scanner, a polygon scanner, a MEMS scanner, and/or a work head that is displaceable relative to the work region.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Krol teaches wherein the scanner device (scan unit 15, fig. 1) comprises at least one of a galvanometer scanner (“one or more galvanometer mirrors,” para 0085), a piezo-scanner, a polygon scanner, a MEMS scanner, and/or a work head that is displaceable relative to the work region (raw material layer 5, fig. 1).
Krol, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
924
968
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Clark, in view of the teachings of Krol, by using galvanometer mirrors, as taught by Krol, for the movable mirrors 26 and 28, as taught by Clark, because galvanometer mirrors are movable mirrors that used for scanning during laser processing, for the advantage of directing or scanning the laser beam to different locations on the substrate by using small movements of the mirrors (Krol, paras 0085 and 0099-0100; Clark, para 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Clark teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive manufacturing includes selective laser sintering and/or for selective laser melting.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Krol teaches wherein the additive manufacturing includes selective laser sintering (“selective laser sintering,,” para 0013) and/or for selective laser melting (“the term “melt pool” is used throughout the present disclosure as an umbrella term for a region of the raw material layer which, under the effect of the laser beam, is heated for a short time in such a manner that the raw material in that region is able to consolidate (for example by fusion,” para 0013; selective fusion of the laser beam is construed as “selective laser melting”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Clark, in view of the teachings of Krol, by performing selective laser fusion or sintering, as taught by Krol, during the powder bed deposition process, as taught by Clark, in order to form a melt pool that is under the effect of the laser beam, for the advantage of selectively consolidating the powder according to a desired shape that forms after melting and consolidation of the powder granules (Krol, para 0013).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Unrath et al. (US-20100301023-A1) teach acousto-optic deflector applications.
Allenberg-Rabe et al. (US-20230147300-A1) is the publication for Application No. 18/149,175.
Meiners et al. (US-20230158571-A1) teach an application similar to the Instant Application.
Corey et al. (US-12070898-B2) teach acousto-optic deflector applications in additive manufacturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/19/2026