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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, support cannot be found for the following added limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
250
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The original specification does not mention “to generate a spatially discretized zone map comprising discrete build-plane locations…”, “conditionally assign modified effective laser parameters to the discrete build-plane locations…”. Examiner notes that Applicant has not pointed out support for the added limitations. The words “discretized", “discrete”, or “effective” do not appear at all in the specification. Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendment(s) made to the disclosure. See MPEP §714.02 and 2163.06. Without any suggestion in original specification, claimed instructions steps are not reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claimed subject matter fails to comply with the written description requirement and constitutes new matter.
With respect to claim 7, support cannot be found for the feature “adjusting scan sequencing based on the spatially discretized interaction zone map”. The terms “scan sequencing" or “spatially discretized” do not appear anywhere in the specification, which lacks guidance concerning the claimed sequencing.
As to claim 9, support cannot be found for the feature “spatially discrete nodes inside the interaction zone”. The term “spatially discrete nodes” is not present anywhere in the specification.
Applicant is requested to cancel all new matter or show sufficient support.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are ambiguous:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
250
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is unclear what is meant by the above instruction steps because the specification fails to define or describe the particular features such as discretized interaction zone map, interaction vs. non-interaction locations, modified effective laser parameters. There is no guidance provided in terms of what is implied by conditionally assign modified effective laser parameters to the discrete build-plane locations? The added instruction limitations constitute new matter as explained in the 112(a) rejection above. Due to lack of guidance in the original disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not able to determine metes & bounds of claimed limitations concerning discrete locations or conditionally assigned parameters. Moreover, the relative terms "effective" or “nominal” parameters are subjective to varying interpretations; they are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitations.
Feature “the plume footprint” (line 14) lacks antecedent basis since “plume footprint” has not been previously recited. The phrase space-time overlap analysis between projected plumes and active laser exposure is ambiguous because a plurality of plumes have not been defined; it is also unclear what is meant by ‘active laser exposure’ (not defined in specification)? Furthermore, it is confusing what is meant by “a function of part placement, orientation, and multi-laser scan strategy” (last 2 lines)- there needs to be some guidance in terms of the function. The specification merely repeats this same language and fails to describe actual function or what is implied by orientation and scan strategy? Consequently, the recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claim 1 is taken to mean: an instruction to generate a geometric projection of a plume onto a build plane and to execute a space-time analysis to identify a laser plume interaction; an instruction to predict defect location and density in the part.
As to claim 7, feature “to reduce laser plume interaction risk by adjusting scan sequencing based on the spatially discretized interaction zone map” is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by “spatially discretized interaction zone map”. The original specification does not even mention words “discrete” or “discretized” and fails to provide any guidance about claimed scan sequencing. The added limitations constitute new matter as noted above. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. Naturally, one skilled in the art desires to reduce formation of interaction defects in the additively fabricated part. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: an instruction to control movement of at least one laser to reduce interaction defect.
As to claim 9, feature “spatially discrete nodes inside the interaction zone” is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by such nodes. The original specification does not even mention words “discrete” or “discretized” and fails to provide any guidance. The added limitation constitutes new matter as noted above. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: an instruction to control movement of at least one laser to reduce interaction defect.
With respect to claim 13, features “compute an effective incident laser power used in the modified effective laser parameters” are ambiguous for substantially same reasons explained in claim 1 above. The relative term "effective" is not even mentioned in the specification and is subjective to varying interpretations. The so-called “effective” power or parameters are not defined by the claim, the specification fails to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitations. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: an instruction to determine a laser attenuation coefficient.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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 1-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenbrock et al. (Effect of laser-plume interaction in multi-laser powder bed fusion, 2020, NPL of record, “Tenbrock”) in view of Mehr et al. (US 2018/0341248, “Mehr”).
Regarding claim 1, Tenbrock discloses multi-laser powder bed fusion (ML-PBF) additive manufacturing and investigating laser-plume interaction in multi-scanner arrangement to identify the formation of structure defects and voids (pg. 1- Abstract and Introduction, pg. 2). The multi-scanner system (fig. 1) comprises a computer readable storage device (any memory) readable by the system, tangibly embodying a program having a set of instructions (software) executable by the system (pg. 6). Tenbrock teaches instructions to approximate a laser plume relative to a melt pool on a powder bed disposed on a build plate within the manufacturing chamber and to execute space-time analysis to identify a laser plume interaction (pg. 6-7- figs. 7-10); an instruction to create a plume interaction zone map (figs. 13-14, pg. 9); and an instruction to predict defect location and density (fig. 15 shows lack of fusion defect, pg. 10-11).
Tenbrock discloses that prior art has suggested plume interaction map can be derived from CFD (computational fluid dynamics) simulations (pg. 2- right column), but does not describe utilizing CFD with a prediction model. However, CFD modeling of gas and/or plume flow in the chamber and use of a predictive model is known in the additive manufacturing art.
Mehr (also directed to real-time adaptive control of additive manufacturing) teaches that process simulation tools such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) are known to those skilled in the art and is employed to visualize how a gas/plume flows in response surrounding conditions (pressure, temperature etc.) and to produce predictive model ([0100, 0105], fig. 8, [0140]). Specifically, training data set and common machine learning algorithm(s) are employed to develop a learned predictive model, which enables classification of object defects (see [0033-0034, 0124]; figs. 10-11, [0141]). Mehr further teaches that the object defect classification data is used to send warning or error signals as well as to determine optimal set or sequence of process controller parameters adjustments that will implement a corrective action to correct a detected defect [0124]. Mehr teaches a computer system including a storage device/memory along with one or more processors such as CPU, GPU or computing platform, which execute sequence of instructions embodied in a program [0165-0168].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate CFD modeling along with a computer system and to feed plume interaction map to a predictive model in the multi-scanner system of Tenbrock with the motivation to detect defects in the additively fabricated object and further to make process parameters adjustments that will implement a corrective action to correct a defect, as suggested by Mehr.
Hence, Tenbrock as modified by teachings of Mehr discloses a computer system including a storage device and embodying program having a set of instructions to execute computational fluid dynamics modeling of a gas flow in an additive manufacturing machine chamber; an instruction to approximate a laser plume relative to a melt pool on a powder bed disposed on a build plate within the manufacturing chamber; an instruction to execute space-time analysis to identify a laser plume interaction; an instruction to create a plume interaction zone map; an instruction to feed the plume interaction zone map prediction into a multi-laser predictive defect model; and an instruction to predict defect location and density in the part.
As to claim 2, it is common knowledge to one skilled in the art that the computational fluid dynamics modeling of the gas flow predicts a flow field inside the chamber.
As to claim 3, Tenbrock discloses that the laser plume includes a vector having velocity and direction influenced by the gas flow and laser/melt pool/powder bed dynamics (figs. 14-16, pg. 10-11).
As to claim 4, Tenbrock shows that the gas flow influences the laser plume formed within the chamber, wherein the gas flow entrains the laser plume and influences a laser spot size and power density (figs. 8-10, pg. 7-9, 11).
As to claim 5, Tenbrock shows that a laser plume projection which indicates the effect of a laser plume ejection velocity from a melt pool- plume ejected from the melt pool is a buoyant jet (pg. 8- plume propagation pattern).
As to claim 6, Tenbrock as modified Mehr in claim 1 above encompasses an instruction to employ computational fluid dynamics for the prediction of laser plume distribution.
As to claim 7, Tenbrock discloses the system comprising an instruction to control movement of at least one laser (movement of processing head by linear axes- fig. 1, pg. 2-3). It is noted this claim is indefinite in scope.
As to claim 11, Tenbrock discloses that a lack of fusion in the powder bed is responsive to a spot size and power density influenced by a laser plume interaction (fig. 15, pg. 11- Effects of laser-plume interaction)
As to claim 12, Tenbrock shows the system comprising an instruction to develop a plume interaction zone map for different layers of the manufacture of the part (figs. 15-16, pg. 10-11).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenbrock in view of Mehr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (Intelligent scanning strategy for improved part quality in ML-PBF additive manufacturing, Jan. 2023, NPL of record, hereafter “He”).
As to claims 8-9, Tenbrock or Mehr does not specifically mention a second laser spot size or power impacted within a first laser plume. However, such features are commonly adjusted in the art. He (also drawn to multi-laser PBF additive manufacturing- title, abstract) teaches that scanning strategy in its broadest senses refers to all parameters associated with scanning, including laser power, beam spot size, scan speed, hatch spacing, scan pattern & sequence (pg. 2- right column). Typically, part defects are associated with non-uniform temperature distribution during the build process and it is desirable to minimize temperature gradients, where scanning strategy plays a significant role in achieving a homogeneous temperature distribution (pg. 2- left column). He teaches that laser power and last spot diameter are common parameters investigated for simulations and experiments (pg. 6, Table 1); scanning primary and secondary laser beams are analyzed for heating strategy (pg. 9, table 2). Accordingly, laser spot size and power density are parameters for achieving art-recognized results of producing homogeneous temperature distribution to reduce defects, as taught by He, and thus are result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing date of the invention to relay and select the laser spot size & power density through process optimization in the collective ML-PBF process of Tenbrock & Mehr in order to meet nominal standard, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenbrock in view of Mehr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (Laser Plume Attenuation and Particle Pickup in LPBF, JOM vol. 72, 2020, NPL of record).
As to claim 13, Tenbrock or Mehr is silent concerning laser attenuation. However, evaluating laser attenuation in LPBF is known in the art. Shen is directed to using gas flow to reduce laser plume attenuation in the process control of LPBF (abstract- pg. 1039). Shen teaches that laser plume attenuation is determined by power loss (ΔP) and consequently, lack of fusion defects can form inside the part due to insufficient effective energy (pg. 1048- right column- Defects due to gas flow speed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to assess a laser attenuation coefficient, which is the power loss ratio, in the ML-PBF process of Tenbrock & Mehr with the motivation to avoid insufficient effective energy and mitigate lack of fusion defects in the additively fabricated part.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/19/26, with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 13 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection(s) set forth above. Presently amended claims lack adequate support and are indefinite in scope for reasons explained above. The arguments against prior art based on the new indefinite features are not convincing. Appropriate amendment(s) is requested to clarify scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights