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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 19-38 are pending. Claims 36-38 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 03/18/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 12/18/2025:
Specification objection
Claim objections, other than any maintained below
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), other than any maintained below
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are maintained.
Prior art rejections are maintained and updated according to claim amendments.
Any new grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 19 and 33 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: amended claim 19 requires a comma or other punctation in part (a) between the new “wherein” clause and “the at least one first optical element…”. Claim 33 still recites the enclosure being “configured to enclosure” in lines 3-4, which should read “configured to enclose”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the examined claims are directed to a device/apparatus. Recitations directed toward a manner of operating a device do not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. MPEP 2114(II). Furthermore, materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus in its intended use do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 19-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
Claim 19 (new claims introduced in preliminary amendment 11/09/2023) recites in part (c), “the at least one detector configured to, during the printing, detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint, the at least one characteristic being of the reflected energy beam and/or of the target surface…” In terms of detecting a characteristic at the footprint via the reflected/returning beam specifically (see detector(s) 1120, 1125, 1127, 1129 in Fig. 11; 1720 in Fig. 17), the specification describes only using this detection to detect one or more characteristics of the target surface ([00211], [00219], [00235]-[00239]), e.g., detecting a temperature of the material/target at a position at/near the footprint or performing imaging of the target surface (e.g., melt pool, its vicinity) to determine properties of the surface or perform thermal analysis. In terms of detecting a characteristic of the energy beam itself, the specification describes the deflected beam detector configuration ([00213], 1728 in Fig. 17); however, this configuration specifically measures characteristics of the radiation before it interacts with the target surface and not the reflected energy beam ([00213], [00219]). Accordingly, the full scope of the new claim is not adequately supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 22 and 23 (new claims introduced in preliminary amendment 11/09/2023) specifically require the at least one detector to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic of the energy beam at the footprint, which is not adequately supported by the original disclosure as set forth above for claim 19. Regarding claim 23, the only description of a detection of a power distribution characteristic of the energy beam appears to be associated with the deflected beam detector ([00213], detector 1728 in Fig. 17). As described above, this detector specifically measures a portion of the beam before it interacts with the target surface (Fig. 17) and therefore is distinct from the detector(s) of claim 19 configured to detect the reflected beam from the footprint at the target surface.
Claim 30 (new claims introduced in preliminary amendment 11/09/2023) recites that “the at least one detector comprises a deflected beam detector configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam before it impinges on the target surface.” Claim 19, from which claim 30 depends, requires that the at least one detector is configured to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint at the target surface so as to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint. As noted above, the deflected beam detector ([00213]) as disclosed is distinct in terms of function and arrangement within the optical system from the reflected beam detector(s) and therefore the disclosure does not provide support for a deflected beam detector as recited in claim 30 that is also configured to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint (claim 19).
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
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.
Claim(s) 19-35 is/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.
Amended claim 19, in part (c), recites that the at least one detector is configured to “detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint, the at least one characteristic being of the reflected energy beam…” The reflected energy beam as recited is specifically a beam that has been reflected from the footprint (is oriented away from the footprint), the footprint being a feature of the (incident) energy beam impinging on the target surface, such that it is unclear how the detected distribution of a characteristic at the footprint could be specifically a characteristic of the reflected energy beam. The specification does not provide clarification. The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one characteristic is of the energy beam.” Amended claim 19 recites, in part (c), “the at least one characteristic being of the reflected energy beam and/or of the target surface.” The “energy beam” as recited in claim 22 appears to refer to the “energy beam” of claim 19, part (a), that is impinged on the target surface, and therefore is not either of “the reflected energy beam and/or the target surface” as recited in claim 19, rendering the scope unclear as to whether the required characteristic is supposed to be of the “reflected” energy beam or if the claim attempts to broaden the characteristics encompassed by claim 19.
Claim 23 requires “the at least one detector configured to…detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint (claim 19), wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.” Accordingly, claim 23 requires the at least one detector being configured “to detect the reflected energy beam” “to detect a distribution of a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.” The configuration “to detect the reflected energy beam…to detect a distribution…of a power distribution” is unclear in view of the specification in terms of the intended structural requirement of the device/detector, particularly considering the lack of corresponding description. The scope of claim 23 is further complicated by the amendment to claim 19, part (c), reciting “the at least one characteristic being of the reflected energy beam,” where claim 23 then recites the conflicting requirement of “the at least one characteristic comprises a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.”
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19-21, 29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Cheverton discloses a device for printing at least one three-dimensional object (direct metal laser melting system, Abstract; system 10, Fig. 1, [0021]), the device comprising:
(a) at least one first optical element (optics 16, Fig. 1, [0021]) configured to direct an energy beam (beam 22, Fig. 1, [0022]) from an energy beam source (from laser device 14, Fig. 1, [0022]) to impinge on a target surface (upper powder/object surface of component 48, Fig. 1, [0023]) to print the at least one 3D object (component 48, Fig. 1, [0023]), the target surface being supported by a substrate (powder bed 24, Fig. 1, [0022]) configured to support the at least one 3D object during the printing (Fig. 1), the energy beam impinging on the target surface having a footprint at the target surface (area where beam hits surface, melt pool area, [0042]), the energy beam impinging on the target surface being at least partially reflected from the footprint to generate a reflected energy beam wherein at least a portion of the reflected energy beam is a returning portion of the energy beam from incidence at the target surface (note that the limitation does not reflect a particular structural limitation of the apparatus which impinges an energy beam 22 on the target surface where said energy beam is capable of being reflected; still, optical signal 42 is transmitted from the melt pool, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0027], which is an energy beam oriented in the same manner opposite the impinged beam as a reflected energy beam), the at least one first optical element being configured to operatively couple with the energy source and to the substrate (operatively coupled in that they are connected by light beams, Fig. 1); and
(b) at least one second optical element (lens 30 and/or 36, Fig. 1, [0026]) configured to collect the reflected energy beam from the footprint during the printing (Fig. 1, collects energy beam 42 from the footprint), the at least one second optical element being configured to operatively couple with the at least one first optical element and to the substrate (operatively coupled in that they are connected by light beams, Fig. 1); and
(c) at least one detector (sensor 26 and/or 32, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0027]) configured to, during the printing, detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint (Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], configured to detect energy beam 42 from the footprint) to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint (light sensors capable of monitoring and measuring size and temperature of the melt pool area, [0027]-[0028], [0042]), the at least one characteristic being of the reflected energy beam and/or of the target surface (of the melt pool area at the target surface, [0027]-[0028], [0042]), the at least one detector being configured to generate a result from the distribution detected (capable of monitoring and measuring size and temperature, [0027]-[0028], providing measured values, i.e., results, [0042]), the result being utilized for the printing (the recitation does not limit the claimed device; still, results can be used for generating correction factors, [0042]-[0043]), the at least one detector being configured to operatively couple with the at least one second optical element (operatively coupled in that they are connected by light beams, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the at least one characteristic is of the target surface (the melt pool area at the target surface, [0027]-[0028], [0042]).
Regarding claim 21, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a temperature along the footprint (temperature of the melt pool area, [0027]-[0028], [0042]).
Regarding claim 29, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the at least one second optical element is configured to direct to the at least one detector the reflected energy beam (Fig. 1, [0026]), the reflected energy beam being collimated when detected by one or more detectors of the at least one detector (being passed through pinhole apertures 28 and/or 34, Fig. 1, [0026]; in line with the present invention in [00217]).
Regarding claim 31, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of a material bed disposed above the substrate during the printing (Fig. 1), the at least one 3D object being printed in the material bed (Fig. 1) and the material bed comprises at least one of the claimed materials (e.g., steel powder, [0024], a metal alloy).
Regarding claim 32, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of a material bed disposed above the substrate during the printing (Fig. 1), the at least one 3D object being printed in the material bed (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Ashton et al., US 20160236279 A1.
Regarding claim 22, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one characteristic being of the energy beam.
The claim requires the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic of the energy beam at the footprint. Cheverton as set forth above for claim 19 discloses the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint. The further recitation of “to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint…the at least one characteristic being of the [energy beam/reflected energy beam]” does not clearly require any further particular structure of the detector in view of the present application.
Assuming arguendo that the recitation requires a further configuration of the device to use the detection of the reflected energy beam at the detector to thereby (in any manner) detect a distribution of a characteristic of the energy beam along the footprint, analogous art Ashton discloses an additive manufacturing device ([0001]) wherein an excess in energy density vaporizing a melt pool can be identified ([0023], i.e., a power distribution at a footprint of a target surface) from an intensity of spectral emissions ([0023]) observed via a detector arrangement ([0069]-[0070]). Ashton teaches that laser power can then be controlled/altered based on the detected light intensity ([0023], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the detector configuration as taught by Ashton such that the at least one characteristic was of the energy beam along the footprint so that a power level of the laser beam could be responsively controlled as a result of the detection of the at least one characteristic at the footprint, as taught by Ashton.
Regarding claim 23, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one characteristic comprising a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.
The claim requires the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint, the at least one characteristic comprising a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint. Therefore, the claim seems to intend to require the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint so as to detect a power distribution of the energy beam at the footprint. Cheverton as set forth above discloses the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint. The further recitation of “to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint…the at least one characteristic comprising a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint” does not clearly require any further particular structure of the detector in view of the present application.
Assuming arguendo that the recitation requires a further configuration of the device to use the detection of the reflected energy beam at the detector to thereby (in any manner) detect a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint, analogous art Ashton discloses an additive manufacturing device ([0001]) wherein an excess in energy density vaporizing a melt pool can be identified ([0023], i.e., a power distribution at a footprint of a target surface) from an intensity of spectral emissions ([0023]) observed via a detector arrangement ([0069]-[0070]). Ashton teaches that laser power can then be controlled/altered based on the detected light intensity ([0023], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the detector configuration as taught by Ashton such that the at least one characteristic comprises a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint so that a power level of the laser beam could be responsively controlled as a result of the detection of the at least one characteristic at the footprint, as taught by Ashton.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Pettit et al., US 20160288254 A1.
Regarding claim 24, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one first optical element being configured to alter a cross section of the energy beam from having a first cross section to having a second cross section, the energy beam having the second cross section impinging at the target surface.
In the analogous art, Pettit discloses systems for additive manufacturing (Abstract) having at least one first optical element (diffractive optical element (DOE), [0036], [0095]) being configured to alter a cross section of the energy beam from having a first cross section to having a second cross section (configured to condition the laser beam from a circular cross section to a spot with a predetermined shape, [0036], [0095]), the energy beam having the second cross section impinging at the target surface (the beam with the predetermined spot shape irradiates the surface, [0036]). Pettit teaches that inclusion of the DOE with other common optical/scanning components enables the configuring of a standard laser beam to an irradiating spot with a predetermined shape and flux distribution ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one first optical element to include a diffractive optical element such that it was configured to alter a cross section of the energy beam from having a first cross section to having a second cross section, the energy beam having the second cross section impinging at the target surface, in order to provide the capability of configuring a standard circular/Gaussian laser beam to an irradiating spot with a predetermined shape and flux distribution, as taught by Pettit.
Regarding claim 25, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 24. The combination as set forth above did not address a particular flux distribution.
Pettit further discloses the at least one first optical element is configured to alter the first cross section to the second cross section comprising a power distribution having a reduced power at a center of the footprint as compared to an elevated power towards edges of the footprint (achievable flux distributions represented by dotted lines in Figs. 11A-11C, [0107]-[0114]). Pettit teaches that the DOE configuration enables different flux patterns for a wide range of applications ([0108], [0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the at least one first optical element is configured to alter the first cross section to the second cross section comprising a power distribution having a reduced power at a center of the footprint as compared to an elevated power towards edges of the footprint via the DOE configuration disclosed by Pettit in order to provide the capability of adjusting the flux pattern for different applications, as taught by Pettit.
Regarding claim 26, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 25, wherein the at least one first optical element comprises a lens configured to alter the first cross section to the second cross section (Pettit: DOE is an optical element that allows transmission/alteration of a light beam and thus comprises a lens, see DOE 38, Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, in view of Pettit et al., US 20160288254 A1, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Yu et al., US 20110046916 A1.
Regarding claim 27, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 24. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one detector comprising an optical fiber, the at least one second optical element focusing an entry to the optical fiber during the printing.
In the analogous art related to radiation detectors for deposition processes ([0002], [0018]), Yu discloses configuring at least one detector (sensor 150, Fig. 1, [0026]) to comprise an optical fiber (optic fiber bundle 120, Fig. 1, [0026]), wherein a corresponding at least one optical element (lens 110, Fig. 1, [0026]) focuses radiation from the working surface to the fiber at an entry end of the fiber (Fig. 1, [0026]). Yu teaches that optical fibers were used for transmitting radiation to a corresponding sensor ([0026]) for real-time monitoring of substrate conditions, such as temperature ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one detector of Cheverton to comprise an optical fiber, the at least one second optical element focusing an entry to the optical fiber during the printing, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Yu discloses the use of a fiber-connected radiation detector where a corresponding optical element focuses an entry of radiation to the optical fiber from a substrate surface during a deposition process and which enables real-time monitoring of substrate conditions, such as temperature.
Regarding claim 28, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 27, wherein the at least one detector is a single pixel detector (Cheverton: photodiode, [0027]; Yu also discloses a photodiode, [0018]).
Claim(s) 30 and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Spears, US 20170242424 A1.
Regarding claim 30, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton does not disclose the at least one detector comprises a deflected beam detector configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam before it impinges on the target surface.
In the analogous art, Spears discloses an additive manufacturing device (Fig. 1) including a deflected beam detector (sensor 58, Fig. 1, [0024], that receives beam S deflected from beam B, Fig. 1, [0026]) configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam (for monitoring laser power, [0026], [0030]) before it impinges on the target surface (Fig. 1). Spears teaches that the laser power data obtained from the sensor can be used, for example, for machine qualification, calibration, to indicate a need for taking corrective action, and/or for real-time control to thereby reduce workpiece variation and improve part quality ([0031]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cheverton such that the at least one detector comprises a deflected beam detector configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam before it impinges on the target surface in order to provide relevant operational data for the laser to improve workpiece quality and consistency, as taught by Spears.
Regarding claim 33, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to an enclosure.
In the analogous art, Spears, introduced above, further discloses the target surface is disposed in an enclosure (housing 28, Fig. 1, [0017]) during the printing of the at least one 3D object, the enclosure configured to enclose the at least one 3D object during the printing (Fig. 1), the enclosure being configured to [enclose] an internal atmosphere different by at least one characteristic from an ambient atmosphere external to the enclosure (e.g., excluding oxygen, [0017]). Spears discloses the housing serves to isolate and protect the components of the machine and to enable the application of a different gas environment ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cheverton to include an enclosure as claimed in order to ensure the isolation and protection of the device components and enable the application of a different gas environment during a build process, as taught by Spears.
Regarding claim 34, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 33, wherein the enclosure is configured to enclose the internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic comprising an internal pressure above an ambient pressure of the ambient atmosphere (Spears: the housing 28 isolating and enclosing the structure of the device, [0017], and therefore being capable of enclosing an atmosphere having a higher pressure relative to outside the device).
Regarding claim 35, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 33, wherein the enclosure is configured to enclose the internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic comprising oxygen or humidity at a reduced level relative to its respective level in the ambient atmosphere (Spears: e.g., excluding oxygen, [0017]), the at least one 3D object comprising an elemental metal or a metal alloy (Cheverton: being made from metal powder, [0020], steel, [0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant argues (pp. 8-9) that the specification provides reasonable clarity and describes in detail the configuration of systems comprising multiple different detectors to detect reflected energy including returning energy beams across a wide array of electromagnetic radiation including infrared, visible, and UV wavelengths.
This statement is noted but does not address the written description issues raised with respect to the specific claim language and the configurations recited in the new claims that were presented in the preliminary amendment.
Regarding written description support of claim 19, Applicant argues (pp. 9-10) that the detection of a characteristic of the energy beam is discussed in para. [00219] and with respect to Fig. 11 which recites that a portion of the energy beam may be reflected (reflected returning energy beam 1142) and directed to a detector (e.g., 1129). Applicant seems to conclude that “a configuration where the characteristics of the returning radiation after it interacts with the target surface are in fact supported by the disclosure” (p. 9).
The examiner does not disagree regarding the specification disclosing a reflected beam detector and this was not argued in the rejection under 112(a). The rejection explained that, while the specification describes a reflected/returning beam detector (e.g., in Figs. 11 and 17 and the corresponding descriptions), the disclosure does not describe the amended/new claim requirement of the configuration of this particular detector to detect the beam “to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint” where “the at least one characteristic is of the energy beam (at the footprint)” and therefore the full scope of the limitation including the “and/or” language is not supported. As set forth in the rejection, the specification describes using the detection from the reflected/returning beam to detect a characteristic of the target surface. In terms of detecting a characteristic of the energy beam, the specification associates this function with the deflected beam detector, which is distinct from the reflected beam detector in the disclosed optical system. Applicant does not adequately address the facts presented in the prior 112(a) rejections with respect to the recited claim language and therefore these rejections are maintained.
Regarding written description support of claims 22 and 23, Applicant argues (p. 10) that the specification describes configurations for providing measurements with respect to the reflected beam and detecting features of a target surface or an object being formed, generally citing [00219], [00221], [00226], [00239].
This argument is not persuasive primarily for the reasons set forth in the initial rejection as it does not address the facts provided in the rejection and the specific claim language. The examiner does not contest that the specification describes a reflected beam detector and that this detector can be used to observe features of the target surface, such as the melt pool or a surface temperature. The written description issue stems from claim language reciting that the detection of the reflected energy beam is used to detect a distribution of a characteristic of the energy beam (or the reflected energy beam) at the footprint. As set forth in the rejection, the specification describes using the detection from this detector to provide measurements of the target surface but not of the energy beam (or the reflected energy beam) at the footprint as recited in the claim. The examiner further notes that none of the cited paragraphs mention the detection of a power distribution characteristic of the energy beam along the footprint as recited in claim 23.
Regarding written description support for claim 30, Applicant argues (p. 10) that the specification describes technology to include configurations where detectors are implemented to measure characteristics of both deflected and reflected light and therefore the disclosure supports “a deflected beam detector.”
This argument is not persuasive as it does not address the rejection made. The rejection acknowledged that a deflected beam detector is disclosed but the specification does not provide support for “the at least one detector” that is configured to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint (claim 19) also comprising the deflected beam detector (claim 30). The reflected and deflected beam detectors as disclosed are separate and distinct detectors in terms of their function and arrangement within the optical system.
Applicant argues (p. 11) regarding the 112(b) rejection, that claim 23 and the structural configuration of the detector to detect reflected light is clear in view of the disclosure of the detector to measure aspects of returning/reflected light. This argument is not persuasive as it does not address the specific issues raised in the rejection with respect to the configuration to detect at least one characteristic of the energy beam wherein the at least one characteristic “comprises a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.” The fact that a detector can measure aspects of returning light does not address the specific claim language.
Regarding prior art rejections, Applicant argues (pp. 12-14) that the present claims are directed to detect a reflected energy beam, i.e., a returning portion of the incident process beam, from the footprint, whereas Cheverton detects and analyzes thermal emission from a melt pool but not any returning portion of the reflected incident light.
This argument is not found persuasive. Claim 19 is directed to a device (an apparatus), and the noted limitation is directed to a detector. The detector must be configured to (structurally capable to) detect an energy beam reflected from the footprint at the target surface. The detector is not structurally different based on the energy beam it is intended to receive being reflected, thermally emitted, or both, so long as it is capable to detect a reflected beam as claimed, i.e., a beam coming from the target surface in the vicinity of the impinged beam during a use of the apparatus. The cited detector(s) of Cheverton are optical sensors (26, 32) intended to and capable of receiving radiation (42) from the target surface that has been impinged by the process beam (22) (Fig. 1). The types of detectors disclosed by Cheverton (optical/imaging sensors such as a camera, photodiode, pyrometer, etc. [0027]) are in line with those disclosed in the present application for a reflected/returning energy beam detector (e.g., filed specification [00219], [00226], [00237]), though a particular detector type is not currently claimed. The detectors of Cheverton are capable of detecting wavelengths ([0028]) in line with those disclosed in the present application (e.g., [00214]). Accordingly, Cheverton’s detectors are substantially the same in terms of their function to detect an energy beam emanating from the target surface, their arrangement within an optical system, their capability to detect certain wavelengths, and their type. Therefore, as to the required structural ability to detect the reflected energy beam, this capability is met as set forth above.
As to Applicant’s argument that Cheverton’s detection of a thermal emission is distinct from detection of a reflected/returned energy beam, the examiner notes that the present specification associates the reflected/returned energy beam detection with both capabilities (e.g., detecting returning/thermal radiation, filed specification, [0013], last three sentences of [0015], [0031], the returning radiation can comprise thermal radiation from the target surface [00207], the irradiating energy may heat a material at the target surface and subsequently emit an electromagnetic radiation of a different wavelength e.g. thermal radiation and/or be reflected back…the back reflected irradiating energy and/or the electromagnetic radiation of a different wavelength are referred to herein as “the returned energy beams” and are detected via one or more detectors [00214], [00226]). The specification describes the capability to measure a characteristic of the target surface at the footprint as being a result of the detection of the returning radiation including thermal radiation (e.g., [0013], last three sentences of [0015], [0025]). As set forth above, whether the detected beam is reflected from the target surface and/or thermally emitted from the target surface does not materially change the structure of the detector. The apparatus claim is limited by its structure and not its intended use.
Applicant argues (pp. 15-16) that neither Cheverton nor the additionally cited references in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 disclose the at least one detector configured to detect the reflected energy beam as claimed. This argument is not found persuasive for the reasons provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080169587 A1, Kihara et al. disclose a 3D printer including a reflected light detector 18 (Fig. 1). US 20170136578 A1, Yoshimura discloses a 3D printer with a reflected light detection unit 192 (Fig. 21).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights