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 § 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.
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 21, 34, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberhofer, et al. (US 2011/0293771) in view of Kritchman, et al. (US 2016/0114535).
In reference to Claim 21, Oberhofer discloses an apparatus for three-dimensional manufacturing ([0021]) (an apparatus for printing at least one three-dimensional (3D) object) comprising a control unit used to modify the building space ([0045]) including the laser 6 ([0021]) (at least one controller configured to: (a) couple to an electrical power source and operatively couple to (i) an energy source configured to generate an energy beam that transforms at least a portion of a material bed to print the at least one 3D object), applying a powdery building material ([0021]) (the material bed having an exposed surface having a roughness).
Oberhofer does not disclose (ii) a scanner configured to propagate the energy beam along the exposed surface; (iii) a detector configured to detect a reflected radiation from the exposed surface; (b) direct the energy source to generate the energy beam configured to irradiate at least a portion of the exposed surface and form a footprint on the exposed surface, the footprint emitting the reflected radiation from the exposed surface; (c) direct the scanner to propagate the energy beam along the exposed surface to cause the footprint of the energy beam to propagate along the exposed surface while emitting the reflected radiation from the exposed surface; (d) direct the detector to detect the reflected radiation from the footprint at the exposed surface during propagation of the energy beam along the exposed surface, to generate associated signals; (e) direct a signal analysis of the associated signals to determine an exposed surface signal component, the signal analysis comprising an optical variability of the associated signals from the reflected radiation, the optical variability indicating at least in part a degree of focus of the energy beam such that the optical variability increases as the focus of the energy beam increases.
Kritchman discloses a sensor for detecting and measuring ([0022]) ((ii) a scanner configured to propagate the energy beam along the exposed surface), and a detector ([0022]) ((iii) a detector configured to detect a reflected radiation from the exposed surface); a reflector to reflect the light radiated from a radiation source ([0033]) ((b) direct the energy source to generate the energy beam configured to irradiate at least a portion of the exposed surface and form a footprint on the exposed surface, the footprint emitting the reflected radiation from the exposed surface); a sensor to measure the radiation output between the reflector ([0034]) ((c) direct the scanner to propagate the energy beam along the exposed surface to cause the footprint of the energy beam to propagate along the exposed surface while emitting the reflected radiation from the exposed surface); an additional sensor to detect the output radiation ([0028]) ((d) direct the detector to detect the reflected radiation from the footprint at the exposed surface during propagation of the energy beam along the exposed surface, to generate associated signals); and adjusting parameters of radiation ([0027]-[0028]) ((e) direct a signal analysis of the associated signals to determine an exposed surface signal component, the signal analysis comprising an optical variability of the associated signals from the reflected radiation, the optical variability indicating at least in part a degree of focus of the energy beam such that the optical variability increases as the focus of the energy beam increases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the apparatus of Oberhofer using the sensors of Kritchman because Kritchman is able to adjust the parameters of the radiation system to control the final product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the apparatus of Oberhofer and the sensors of Kritchman because the sensors help to adjust the parameters. The reasonable expectation of success for adding the sensors of Kritchman to the apparatus of Oberhofer would be a more controllable system.
In reference to Claim 34, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Kritchman discloses calibrating the laser using a sensor ([0047]) (the at least one controller is configured to direct a calibration of the energy beam at least in part by comparing a deviation of the optical variability at a given energy beam cross section with a benchmark optical variability value of the energy beam at the given energy beam cross section).
In reference to Claim 37, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Oberhofer discloses metal powders and possible alloys for the building material ([0023]) (the material bed comprises an elemental metal or a metal alloy, and wherein during the printing, an internal atmosphere of an enclosure in which the material bed is disposed compress oxygen and humidity).
In reference to Claim 38, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Oberhofer discloses metal powders and possible alloys for the building material ([0023]) (the material bed comprises elemental metal, metal alloy, ceramic, or an allotrope of elemental carbon).
In reference to Claim 39, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Oberhofer discloses using the apparatus for creating a 3D object ([0072]) ((b) using the apparatus to print the 3D object).
In reference to Claim 40, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Oberhofer discloses using a control unit to run the apparatus to create a 3D object ([0021]) (non-transitory computer readable program instructions that, when read by one or more processors operatively coupled to the apparatus of claim 21 cause the one or more processors to execute one or more operations associated with the apparatus to print the 3D object, the program instructions being inscribed on at least one non-transitory computer readable medium; and optionally wherein the at least one controller comprises the one or more processors).
Claims 22-23, 26, 29, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberhofer, et al. (US 2011/0293771) in view of Kritchman, et al. (US 2016/0114535) as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Liang (Liang, et al., High-Precision laser beam shaping using a binary-amplitude spatial light modulator, February 17, 2010, Applied Optics, Vol. 49, Issue 8, pp. 1323-1330).
In reference to Claim 22, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Modified Oberhofer does not disclose (I) the optical variability comprises a spatial frequency variability and/or (II) the signal analysis comprises (a) using an optical transfer function or (b) using a modulation transfer function.
Liang discloses spatial-frequency (Abstract) ((I) the optical variability comprises a spatial frequency variability and/or (II) the signal analysis comprises (a) using an optical transfer function or (b) using a modulation transfer function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the apparatus of Oberhofer using the target profiles of Liang because it would limit the measured errors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the targeted profile of Liang for the apparatus of Oberhofer to limit errors. A reasonable expectation of success for Oberhofer’s apparatus with Liang’s target profile with limited errors.
In reference to Claim 23, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Liang discloses various shapes with a transition region between the flat central region and zero irradiance within a finite spatial frequency bandwidth (Section 3A) (the footprint of the energy beam has an energy profile comprising a lower energy in a middle of the footprint as compared to edges of the footprint, the edges having similar energy).
In reference to Claim 26, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Liang a varying beam profile with either a square or circular cross-section (Abstract) (the higher variability in the associated signals is further correlated with a smaller cross section of the energy beam).
In reference to Claim 29, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Liang discloses refinement of the beam profile after each measurement (Section 1) (the energy beam has a first cross section after irradiation through an optical arrangement, wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct altering the first cross section of the energy beam to a second cross section of the energy beam before impinging at the exposed surface).
In reference to Claim 32, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Liang discloses detection of astigmatism or phase nonuniformity in the beam (Section 5) (the at least one controller is configured to direct detection of an astigmatism (a) of the footprint and/or (b) of a cross section of the energy beam).
In reference to Claim 33, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 32, as described above.
Liang discloses detection of astigmatism or phase nonuniformity in the beam (Section 5) (the at least one controller is configured to direct the detection of the astigmatism during translation of the energy beam along the exposed surface).
Claims 24-25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberhofer, et al. (US 2011/0293771) in view of Kritchman, et al. (US 2016/0114535) as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Mah (Mah, et al. 3D laser imaging for surface roughness analysis, February 2013, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 58, Pages 111-117).
In reference to Claim 24, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Modified Oberhofer does not disclose the at least one controller is programmed to direct translation of the energy beam at a rate that operable to (a) retain information regarding roughness of the exposed surface and (b) hinder transformation of the exposed surface by the energy beam.
Mah discloses using a laser to acquire a 3D image of a surface roughness (Section 2) with an adjustment in the laser both creating and validating the imaging being completed (Section 5) (the at least one controller is programmed to direct translation of the energy beam at a rate that operable to (a) retain information regarding roughness of the exposed surface and (b) hinder transformation of the exposed surface by the energy beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the apparatus of Oberhofer using the laser to measure the surface roughness like in Mah because the laser measurements are quicker than manual measurements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to measure the surface roughness like Mah using the laser from Oberhofer because the surface roughness would change the intensity of the laser needed. The reasonable expectations of success for measuring the surface roughness like Mah using Oberhofer’s laser would be an accurate vision of the laser intensity needed to complete the project.
In reference to Claim 25, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, as described above.
Mah discloses using the laser to read the surface roughness without manipulation of the surface (Section 6) (the at least one controller is programmed to (a) irradiate the energy beam at a power density that operable to retain information regarding the roughness of the exposed surface and (b) hinder transformation of the exposed surface by the energy beam).
In reference to Claim 35, modified Oberhofer discloses the apparatus of Claim 34, as described above.
Mah discloses the distance to the surface is part of the measurement for the surface roughness calculation (Sections 4 & 5) which is used to determine the manipulation necessary for the laser to achieve the prescribed final strength (Section 5) (the benchmark optical variability value is generated using a known roughness of the exposed surface, and (i) a focal setting of an optical arrangement and a varying height of the exposer surface or (ii) a height of the exposed surface and a varying focal setting of the optical arrangment).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-28, 30-31, and 36 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 27 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose configuring a controller to change a wave pattern of the energy based on a function of the roughness.
Claim 28 would be allowable because of its dependence on Claim 27.
Claim 30 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose configuring a controller to change an optical setting.
Claim 31 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose altering the focus of the energy beam to alter the first cross section.
Claim 36 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose a physical filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742