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 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, 14, and 19 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one operating parameter." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “and/or …at least one operating parameter,” so it is unclear what “the at least on operating parameter” refers if the “at least one operating parameter” in claim 1 is not required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one operating parameter." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “and/or …at least one operating parameter,” so it is unclear what “the at least on operating parameter” refers if the “at least one operating parameter” in claim 1 is not required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the time scale on which the energy beam can be deflected by the deflection device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a time scale” has not been previously recited.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the time scale on which the energy beam can be deflected by the deflection device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a time scale” has not been previously recited.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettit (US20160288254A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
689
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Pettit
PNG
media_image2.png
328
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 of Pettit
Regarding claim 1, Pettit teaches a manufacturing device for additive manufacturing of component parts from a powder material (33, Fig. 12), comprising
a beam producing device (2) configured to produce an energy beam (43),
a scanner device (4) configured to displace the energy beam (43) to a plurality of irradiation positions (Fig. 4) within a work region (6) in order to produce a component part (body 6) from the powder material (33) arranged in the work region (6) by means of the energy beam (3),
a deflection device (32, 24, 38) configured to displace the energy beam (43) at an irradiation position (Fig. 4) of the plurality of irradiation positions (Fig. 4) within a beam region (Fig. 4) to a plurality of beam positions (Fig. 4), and
a control device (29) operatively connected to the deflection device and configured to control the deflection device (32, 24, 38) and to produce a specific intensity profile in the beam region ([0063-0064] a computer or microprocessor is often required to operate many of the devices, to condition the spot shape and flux profile)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 ([0095] laser 43 becoming spot 7) within the beam region (Fig. 12) 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 ([0087] Fig. 4 geometric features close to the spot path can influence the flux profile 11 required to attain the specified temperature profile within the spot 7, the geometric feature being an intensity influencing parameter).
Regarding claim 2, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to modify the intensity profile by varying the at least one operating parameter ([0101] a changeable diffraction pattern configured to condition the laser beam 43 to a dynamically changing flux profile shape).
Regarding claim 3, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to produce the intensity profile as a Gaussian, non-Gaussian, constant, asymmetric or distorted intensity profile ([0036] Gaussian).
Regarding claim 4, Pettit teaches 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 (32, 24, 38, [0114] The shape of the flux profile is adjusted by translating the DOE 38 with the moving stage 24, and adjusting the beam diameter with the beam expander 32).
Regarding claim 5, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to modify the intensity profile and/or the shape of the beam region during the production of a component part by varying the at least one operating parameter ([0087]Fig. 4 geometric features close to the spot path can influence the flux profile 11 required to attain the specified temperature profile within the spot 7, automatically reduces the magnitude of the flux profile 11 as required to keep the spot surface at the specified temperature profile).
Regarding claim 6, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the deflection device (32, 24, 38) is disposed upstream of the scanner device (4) in a direction of propagation of the energy beam (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 11, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the scanner device (4) has at least one scanner (23) that is displaceable relative to the work region ([0101] single movable mirror 23).
Regarding claim 12, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the beam producing device is embodied as a laser ([0064] laser beam source 2).
Regarding claim 13, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the manufacturing device is configured for selective laser sintering and/or for selective laser melting ([0079] melt).
Regarding claim 15, Pettit teaches a method for producing a specific intensity profile ([0063] condition the spot shape and flux profile) of an energy beam (43) in a beam region (Fig. 4) on a work region of a manufacturing device ([0063] body 6) for additive manufacturing of component parts from a powder material ([0020, 0042] an additive manufacturing process on non-consolidated material in powder bed additive manufacturing applications), the method comprising:
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
b.) displacing the energy beam ([0095] laser 43 becoming spot 7) within the beam region (Fig. 12) and by specifying at least one operating parameter for the energy beam 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 ([0087] Fig. 4 geometric features close to the spot path can influence the flux profile 11 required to attain the specified temperature profile within the spot 7, the geometric feature being an intensity influencing parameter).
Regarding claim 16, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 15, wherein additionally a specific shape of the beam region is produced by specifying the at least one operating parameter ([0114] The shape of the flux profile is adjusted by translating the DOE 38 with the moving stage 24, and adjusting the beam diameter with the beam expander 32).
Regarding claim 17, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the shape of the beam region and/or the intensity profile is/are modified by varying the at least one operating parameter ([0087] Fig. 4 geometric features close to the spot path can influence the flux profile 11 required to attain the specified temperature profile within the spot 7, automatically reduces the magnitude of the flux profile 11 as required to keep the spot surface at the specified temperature profile).
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettit (US20160288254A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Hunze (US20200023583A1).
Regarding claim 7, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, but is silent on wherein the deflection device has at least one acousto-optic deflector.
Hunze teaches wherein the deflection device (14) has at least one acousto-optic deflector ([0012] an electro optical modulator or an acousto-optical modulator).
Pettit and Hunze are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lasers. It would have been obvious to have modified Pettit to incorporate the teachings of Hunze to have the deflection device be an acoutso-optic modulator in order to be able to modulate energy beams through a corresponding phase modulator allowing greater control of the position and shape of the beam on the build plane (Hunze [0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, but is silent on wherein the deflection device has at least one electro-optic deflector.
Hunze teaches wherein the deflection device (14) has at least one electro-optic deflector ([0012] an electro optical modulator or an acousto-optical modulator).
It would have been obvious to have modified Pettit to incorporate the teachings of Hunze to have the deflection device be an electro-optic modulator in order to be able to modulate energy beams through a corresponding phase modulator allowing greater control of the position and shape of the beam on the build plane (Hunze [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pettit and Hunze teaches all of the elements of the current invention as described above. Hunze further teaches wherein the control device is configured to excite in the at least one acousto-optic deflector an acoustic wave ([0012] an acousto-optical modulator, known to generate and use acoustic waves).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettit (US20160288254A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Walrund (US12030244B2).
Regarding claim 10, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, but is silent on further comprising a separation mirror disposed downstream of the deflection device and upstream of the scanner device in a direction of propagation of the energy beam, the separation mirror being configured to separate a zero-order partial beam from a first-order partial beam of the energy beam.
Walrund teaches further comprising a separation mirror (121) disposed downstream of the deflection device (1101) and upstream of the scanner device (130) in a direction of propagation of the energy beam (111), the separation mirror (121) being configured to separate a zero-order partial beam (Col. 3 lines 55-65 reflecting the laser beam emitted by the laser source; where the laser beam from the laser source is a zero-order partial beam) from a first-order partial beam of the energy beam (Col. 3 lines 55-65 directing it towards the scanning device; where the laser reflected by the mirror is the first-order partial beam).
Pettit and Walrund are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lasers. It would have been obvious to have modified Pettit to incorporate the teachings of Walrund to have a mirror between the deflection device and the scanner device so that the laser beam may be directed to the scanner from the laser source in an angled manner which allows for a reduction in the dimensions of the modulating mirror which increases the efficacy of the modulating device (Walrund Col. 5 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 18, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 15, but is silent on wherein the intensity profile is additionally produced by changing the intensity of the energy beam provided by the energy producing device.
Walrund teaches wherein the intensity profile is additionally produced by changing the intensity of the energy beam provided by the energy producing device (Col. 12 lines 1-25 laser power adjusted).
It would have been obvious to have modified Pettit to incorporate the teachings of Walrund to change an intensity profile through the energy of the laser beam in order to be able to achieve a desired surface fusion rate with a desired surface productivity (Walrund Col. 12 lines 1-25).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettit (US20160288254A1).
Regarding claim 14, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the time scale on which the energy beam (43, being deflected at a time scale) can be deflected by the deflection device (32, 24, 38) and a time scale on which the energy beam (7), being deflected at a time scale is deflected by the scanner device (4).
Pettit does not teach wherein the time scale on which the energy beam can be deflected by the deflection device is smaller by a factor of 10 to 1000 than a time scale on which the energy beam is deflected by the scanner device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to the time scale on which the energy beam can be deflected by the deflection device is smaller by a factor of 10 to 1000 than a time scale on which the energy beam is deflected by the scanner device, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, Pettit teaches the manufacturing device as claimed in claim 15, and Pettit teaches wherein the time scale on which the energy beam (43, being deflected at a time scale) can be deflected by a deflection device (32, 24, 38) and a time scale on which the energy beam (7), being deflected at a time scale is deflected by the scanner device (4).
Pettit does not teach wherein the time scale on which the energy beam can be deflected by the deflection device is smaller by a factor of 10 to 1000 than a time scale on which the energy beam is deflected by the scanner device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to the time scale on which the energy beam can be deflected by the deflection device is smaller by a factor of 10 to 1000 than a time scale on which the energy beam is deflected by the scanner device, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/11/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761