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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
The reference sign 4 in fig. 1 is not mentioned in the description (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13.l).
Figures 3-4 are drawn to scale. However, a graphical scale is not shown (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13.d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there is a minor informality. Recommend correcting “250 mm/s.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 13 June 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/EP2021/082833 and of the European patent application EP20216448 is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 24 November 2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 13 June 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 6-8 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 6-8 recites at least one step or instruction for concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 6-8 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, claim 6 recites: “A computer (additional element)-implemented method for providing manufacturing instructions for the additive manufacturing of a component (judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), comprising defining irradiation parameters according to the method as claimed in claim 1 (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, claim 8 recites: “A computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium (additional element), comprising commands (judgment and evaluation, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which, upon execution of a corresponding program by a computer or a controller of irradiation in an additive manufacturing facility (additional elements), cause it to implement the method as claimed in claim 1.”
Further, dependent claim 7 recites: “The method as claimed in claim 6, which is a computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) method (determined to be a “use” claim, i.e., the claim requires use the method of claim 6 in computer-aided manufacturing, per MPEP 2173.05.q).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent Claim 7) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 6 and 8), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h).
More specifically, the additional elements of: a computer, controller, additive manufacturing facility, and a computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 6 and 8, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 6-8 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a computer, controller, additive manufacturing facility, and a computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “computer” and the “controller” are described generically as being a “computer, a data processing device, or a control device.” The “additive manufacturing facility” is described generically as a “LPBF” (laser powder bed fusion) “facility,” which is described as “conventional” and which is known to be used for “the manufacturing of gas turbine blades.” The “computer program product” is generically described as “(volatile or nonvolatile) memory medium, such as a memory card, a USB stick, a CD-ROM, or DVD, or also in the form of a downloadable file from a server and/or in a network” containing “program code, machine code or numeric control instructions, such as G code, and/or other executable program instructions in general.” Thus, based on the specification, the claimed computer components and the additive manufacturing facility are well understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “computer,” “controller,” and “computer program product” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer, controller, or computer program product. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 6 and 8 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods and product of Claims 6-8 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 6 and 8 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 6-8 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 6-8 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-8 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 1 recites: “…defining irradiation vectors for a layer to be irradiated for the component, irradiating the irradiation vectors below a length of 1 mm in a pulsed irradiation mode…” It is not clear if the “irradiating” step is required if during the “defining” step, there are no vectors that are below a length of 1 mm (MPEP 2111.04). For example, if the “defining” step only defines vectors of 2 mm and above, does the “irradiating” step need to happen. Recommend reciting the condition precedent for the “irradiating” step in the “defining” step, e.g., “defining irradiation vectors for a layer to be irradiated for the component, wherein the irradiation vectors comprise lengths of below 1 mm, and irradiating the irradiation vectors below the length of 1 mm in a pulsed irradiation mode.”
Claim 3 recites: “wherein irradiating the irradiation vectors between 1 mm and 2 mm length are in a pulsed irradiation mode.” Claim 3 has the same problem as claim 1, where the condition precedent is not recited for “vectors between 1 mm and 2 mm length” (MPEP 2111.04). Recommend including the condition precedent to ensure that this “irradiating” step is required within the scope of the claim.
Claim 4 recites: “wherein a hatching distance of the irradiation vectors is selected in such a way that an overlap of directly adjacent irradiation vectors of corresponding melt pools is between 30% and 50%.” It is unclear if this limitation applies to the “defining” step or the “irradiating” step of claim 1. Recommend clarifying how this limitation affects the scope of claim 1.
The term “approximately” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of the examination, “approximately 2 mm” will be interpreted as a tolerance of 0.5 mm, i.e., 1.5-2.5 mm.
It is unclear if claim 6 is an independent method claim or if it is instead a method claim that is dependent on another method claim (claim 1). It is also not clear how much of claim 1 is within the scope of claim 6. For example, the preamble of claim 6 is “A computer-implemented method for providing manufacturing instructions….” It is unclear how a “method for powder bed-based additive manufacturing” that requires irradiation according to claim 1 can be within the scope of a method that provides instructions as required in claim 6. If claim 6 is intended to be an independent method claim, then recommend not referencing claim 1 but including those method steps from claim 1 within the scope of claim 6 and adjusting the preamble of claim 6 accordingly. If claim 6 is intended to be a dependent method claim, then recommend clarifying in the preamble that claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, i.e., that claim 6 requires all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process (MPEP 2173.05.q). Specifically, the claim requires the use of the method claim 6 in a computer-aided manufacturing method. The claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 8 recites: “…upon execution of a corresponding program by a computer or a controller of irradiation in an additive manufacturing facility, cause it to implement the method as claimed in claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “it” limitation in the claim. Specifically, does “it” refer to the “computer,” the “controller,” or the “additive manufacturing facility?” It is also not clear if in the situation where the “computer” is selected within the alternative, whether the “additive manufacturing facility” needs to be within the scope of the claim. It appears that the facility is not required because the facility is attributed to the “irradiation,” which is attributed to the “controller” (and not the computer). Moreover, the preamble of claim 8 is “A computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium…” It is unclear how an “additive manufacturing facility” can be within the scope of a “computer program product.” If the facility is not within the scope of the claim, then it is unclear how the method of claim 1 can be implemented, because claim 1 requires an “irradiating” step. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of what is the “it” in the claim or whether the additive manufacturing facility is within the scope of the claim, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim will be interpreted as not requiring an additive manufacturing facility.
Claim 2 is rejected based on its dependency to claim 1.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Geisen teaches a method for powder bed-based additive manufacturing (“powder bed fusion,” para 0054) of a component (component 10, fig. 1), comprising:
defining irradiation vectors (vectors KV1 and KV2, fig. 2) for a layer (surface area FB, fig. 2; “layer,” para 0071) to be irradiated for the component (para 0072),
irradiating (the KV2 vector is pulsed, para 0077) the irradiation vectors below a length of 1 mm in a pulsed irradiation mode (“a length between 50 and 200 µm,” para 0076; construed as a length of 0.05-0.2 mm),
wherein a pulse frequency below 3 kHz (“between 1 and 50 Hz,” para 0068) and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s are selected (“selected as less than 200 mm/s,” para 0076).
Geisen, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
570
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Geisen teaches a computer-implemented method (“computer,” para 0016) for providing manufacturing instructions (“program is executed by a computer or a data processing device,” para 0036) for the additive manufacturing of a component (component 10, fig. 1), comprising defining irradiation parameters (“irradiation parameters,” para 0076) according to the method as claimed in claim 1 (please see the rejection above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Geisen teaches the method as claimed in claim 6 (please see the rejection above for claim 6), which is a computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) method (para 0085).
Regarding claim 8, Geisen teaches a computer program product (“computer program product,” para 0003; “CAD file,” para 0085) stored on a tangible computer readable medium (file that can be uploaded to or downloaded from a “peer-to-peer” network, para 0034), comprising commands (“G-Code,” para 0086) which, upon execution of a corresponding program (“CAD,” para 0086) by a computer or a controller (“computer or a data processing device,” para 0036) of irradiation in an additive manufacturing facility (fig. 1), cause it to implement the method as claimed in claim 1 (“perform the layer-wise determination of the irradiation pattern as described above,” para 0036).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20150183165-A1) in view of Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Abe teaches a method (“Manufacturing Method of the Present Invention,” para 0050) for powder bed-based additive manufacturing (fig. 1) of a component (solidified layer 24, fig. 1B), comprising:
defining irradiation vectors (sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7; “hatching path,” para 0050) for a layer (portion of powder layer shown in fig. 7) to be irradiated for the component,
irradiating the irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) below a length of 1 mm (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed such that below 1 mm is considered a short path).
Abe, fig. 7
PNG
media_image2.png
1213
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Abe does not explicitly disclose a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein a pulse frequency below 3 kHz and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s are selected.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches a pulsed irradiation mode (the KV2 vector is pulsed, para 0077), wherein a pulse frequency below 3 kHz (“between 1 and 50 Hz,” para 0068) and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s (“selected as less than 200 mm/s,” para 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by using the irradiation parameters for the KV2 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, in order to use vectors that reduce the radiation power as a result of pulsing or modulating the laser power instead of using continuous power, for the advantage of decreasing the likelihood of hot cracks or deformations that might result in the small component areas at the edges of thin walls or corners (Geisen, paras 0065 and 0077; Abe teaches reducing the output power for the “short sub-irradiation paths,” para 0053).
Regarding claim 2, Abe teaches wherein the irradiation vectors (sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) are hatching irradiation vectors (“hatching path,” para 0050).
Regarding claim 5, Abe teaches further comprising: wherein irradiating the irradiation vectors (sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) from a length of approximately 2 mm (the “long sub-irradiation paths” have a length of at least 1.5 mm, para 0057; 1.5 mm is construed as “approximately 2 mm” ).
Abe does not explicitly disclose a continuous irradiation mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches a continuous irradiation mode (vectors KV1 are “continuously irradiated,” para 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by using the irradiation parameters for the KV1 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the long sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, in order to use vectors that have high radiation power, because in the long sub-irradiation paths, the melted region is not likely to thermally deform due to the longer length of the paths and the inner positioning of the paths (in contrast with the short sub-irradiation paths, which have short lengths and which are on the edges), permitting more heat to be transferred to the additively manufactured object without concern of deformation (Geisen, para 0065 and 0077; Abe teaches that the output power for the “long sub-irradiation paths” is greater than the short paths, para 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose a computer-implemented method for providing manufacturing instructions for the additive manufacturing of a component, comprising defining irradiation parameters according to the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches a computer-implemented method (“computer,” para 0016) for providing manufacturing instructions (“program is executed by a computer or a data processing device,” para 0036) for the additive manufacturing of a component (component 10, fig. 1), comprising defining irradiation parameters (“irradiation parameters,” para 0076) according to the method as claimed in claim 1 (please see the rejection above for claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by programming into a CAD file, as taught by Geisen, the division of sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe in fig. 7, in order to generate a CAD file that provides irradiation parameters, which can be uploaded or downloaded in a computer-aided manufacturing process, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired irradiation parameters are set and maintained during radiation (Geisen, paras 0085-0086).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Abe in view of Geisen as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Geisen teaches the method as claimed in claim 6 (please see the rejection above for claim 6), which is a computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) method (para 0085).
Regarding claim 8, Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose a computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium, comprising commands which, upon execution of a corresponding program by a computer or a controller of irradiation in an additive manufacturing facility, cause it to implement the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches a computer program product (“computer program product,” para 0003; “CAD file,” para 0085) stored on a tangible computer readable medium (file that can be uploaded to or downloaded from a “peer-to-peer” network, para 0034), comprising commands (“G-Code,” para 0086) which, upon execution of a corresponding program (“CAD,” para 0086) by a computer or a controller (“computer or a data processing device,” para 0036) of irradiation in an additive manufacturing facility (fig. 1), cause it to implement the method as claimed in claim 1 (“perform the layer-wise determination of the irradiation pattern as described above,” para 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by programming into a CAD file, as taught by Geisen, the division of sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe in fig. 7, in order to generate a CAD file that provides irradiation parameters, which can be uploaded or downloaded in a computer-aided manufacturing process, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired irradiation parameters are set and maintained during radiation (Geisen, paras 0085-0086).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20150183165-A1) in view of Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liebl et al. (US-20170282246-A1) and Kenney et al. (US-20190054533-A1).
Abe teaches irradiation vectors between 1 mm and 2 mm length (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed as lengths for short paths that are between 1 mm and 1.5 mm).
Abe does not explicitly disclose wherein irradiating the irradiation vectors between 1 mm and 2 mm length are in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s are selected.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Liebl teaches wherein irradiating the irradiation vectors between 1 mm and 2 mm length (inskin regions 20 are construed as regions with hatch distances less than 1.5 mm, fig. 4; annotated in fig. 4 below; Liebl teaches that the power and the velocity are results-effective variables dependent on the hatch distance h, para 0023).
Liebl, fig. 4
PNG
media_image3.png
2581
2509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Liebl, by adjusting the power and velocity of the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, based on the hatch distance, as taught by Liebl, because the power and velocity are results-effective variables that should be adjusted based on the hatch geometry of the component region, for the advantage of providing a consistent homogenous and uniform material property throughout the component despite different component geometries (Liebl, paras 0004 and 0028-0029), such that it would be obvious to try different power outputs and velocities for hatch distances that are less than 1.5 mm, and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Abe/Liebl do not explicitly disclose a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s are selected.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Kenney teaches a pulsed irradiation mode (“pulsed laser energy,” abstract), wherein a pulse frequency above 3 kHz (“the pulse frequency is in the range of approximately 20 KHz to 50 KHz,” para 0031) and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s are selected (“200 mm/s to about 400 mm/s,” para 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe/Liebl, in view of the teachings of Kenney, where the power, as taught by Liebl, is adjusted based on the pulse frequency and the scan velocity, as taught by Kenney, for the short sub-irradiation paths less than 1.5 mm, as taught by Abe, because the power is a results-effective variable that is dependent on pulse frequency and scan velocity, and it would be obvious to try pulse frequencies between 20 kHz and 50 kHz and scan velocities between 200 mm/s and 400 mm/s in order to optimize the power to provide the best performance of solidification qualities (Kenney, paras 0030-0032), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20150183165-A1) in view of Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pays (WO-2019202263-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a hatching distance of the irradiation vectors is selected in such a way that an overlap of directly adjacent irradiation vectors of corresponding melt pools is between 30% and 50%.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Pays teaches wherein a hatching distance (L3, fig. 10) of the irradiation vectors is selected in such a way that an overlap of directly adjacent irradiation vectors (“scanning with said laser beam,” para 0020; “displacement vectors,” para 0022) of corresponding melt pools (“weld beads overlapping,” para 0020) is between 30% and 50% (“greater than or equal to 40% and less than or equal to 50%,” para 0020).
Pays, fig. 10
PNG
media_image4.png
368
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Pays, by overlapping, as taught by Pays, the weld beads of adjacent paths, as taught in fig. 7 of Abe, in order to overlap weld beads in the regions, for the advantage of ensuring sufficient density to obtain a part with good mechanical strength properties (Pays, para 0072).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kays et al. (NPL: “Selective laser melting of iron-based powder) teaches pulsing in order to prevent balling or warpage.
Honda et al. (US-20150306699-A1) teach a combination of pulsing and continuous beams during additive manufacturing.
Nassar et al. (US-10046394-B2) teach pulsing the beam during energy deposition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights