DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites: “ form a layer of a given volume in a build zone of the space ”. Applicant is advised to change this to ““ form a layer of a given volume in a build zone of the work space ”. Applicant is advised to end each claim element with “;” rather than “:”. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 13 of the specification, paragraph [0036] of PG Pub US 2024/0227295 , it recites “the imaged pattern being shown in FIG. 1B with, by comparison with FIG. 1A,” There is no Fig. 1A nor Fig. 1B in drawings. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOWKAR et al. US 20 21 / 0291457 (hereinafter JOWKAR ) in view of Goodwin et al. US 2022/0252392 (hereinafter Goodwin ). Regarding claim 1 , JOWKAR teaches: a method of monitoring and influencing an additive layer manufacturing process in which selective fusing of powder material in successively applied layers is carried out to manufacture a three-dimensional article (Abstract - - 3D printing) , the method comprising : delivering to a work space a quantity of the powder material in excess of that required to form a layer of a given volume in a build zone of the space (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0032] - - excess build material left on the excess zone) ; spreading the powder material within the work space to form the layer in the build zone and to additionally form an accumulation of excess powder material in an accumulation zone adjoining the build zone (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0032] - - excess build material left on the excess zone; excess zone is an accumulation zone) ; repeating the step of spreading to form successive such layers and accumulations ([0024] - - repeat step for each layer) ; determining an at least approximate volume of each accumulation by imaging of a structured light pattern which has been projected onto the respective accumulation, and by evaluating the imaged pattern to derive the at least approximate volume (Fig. 9, [0037] - - quantify a volume of excess build material; [0046] ; [0012] - - LED array is to imaging a light pattern ) ; and influencing the additive layer manufacturing process in dependence on the determined volumes of the accumulations ([0042] - - the amount of build material provided is adjusted based on a quantified amount of excess build material) . But JOWKAR does not explicitly teach: determining an at least approximate volume of each accumulation by imaging of a structured light pattern which has been projected onto the respective accumulation, the imaging being from a direction different from a direction of the projection so that distortion of the projected pattern by the accumulation is produced in the imaged pattern, and by evaluating the imaged pattern to derive from the pattern distortion the at least approximate volume of the accumulation responsible for the distortion ; However, Goodwin teaches: determining an at least approximate volume of each accumulation by imaging of a structured light pattern which has been projected onto the respective accumulation, the imaging being from a direction different from a direction of the projection so that distortion of the projected pattern by the accumulation is produced in the imaged pattern, and by evaluating the imaged pattern to derive from the pattern distortion the at least approximate volume of the accumulation responsible for the distortion (Fig.17A, Fig.17B, [0369]-[0372] - - light is projected to the powder bed at angle θ1, scattered light is collected by detection system at angle θ2; the slit creates a structured light pattern; [0006] - - fringe projection methods provide a 3D map (height at a 2D grid of points), thus volume is calculated based on the height and 2D grid information) ; JOWKAR and Goodwin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system. Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by JOWKAR , and incorporating determining volume using fringe projection , as taught by Goodwin . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide real time metrology of the powder bed , as suggested by Goodwin (Abstract). Regarding claim 2 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the step of influencing is carried out in relation to powder material used or for use in the additive layer manufacturing process ([0042] - - the amount of build material provided is adjusted based on a quantified amount of excess build material; the amount of excess build material is related to powder material used ). Regarding claim 3 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the step of influencing comprises influencing at least one of delivery of powder material to and spreading of powder material in the work space ([0042] - - the amount of build material provided is adjusted based on a quantified amount of excess build material) . Regarding claim 4 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the step of influencing comprises adjusting a parameter of powder layer formation in the build zone ([0042] - - the amount of build material provided is adjusted based on a quantified amount of excess build material) . Regarding claim 5 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the parameter is a rate of powder material distribution to form the layer ([0042] - - the amount of build material provided for the subsequent layer is adjusted; the material amount for each layer defines the rate of material distribution since each layer takes a particular time). Regarding claim 6 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: comparing the determined at least approximate volume of each accumulation with the given volume of the layer to obtain a measurement of powder material consumption by each layer, wherein the additive layer manufacturing process is influenced as a function of the obtained measurements of powder material consumption (Fig. 12a, Fig. 12b, Fig. 12c, [0050], [0051] - - the total amount of material provided is defined by height A1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would obtain material consumption by: total amount of material minus excess material; [0042] - - the amount of build material provided is adjusted based on a quantified amount of excess build material which is a function of material consumption) . Regarding claim 7 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the manufacturing process includes delivering to the work space further powder material for use in formation of the successive layers and the step of influencing comprising regulating the delivery as a function of the obtained measurements of powder material consumption ([0042] - - the amount of build material provided is adjusted based on a quantified amount of excess build material which is a function of material consumption) . Regarding claim 8 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the delivery of further powder material is regulated with respect to timing of the delivery ([0030] - - the thickness of a layer of build material depends on the velocity of the dispensing device; controlling the velocity of the dispensing device is controlling timing) . Regarding claim 9 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the delivery of further powder material is regulated with respect to the amount of further powder material in the delivery ([0042] - - the amount of build material provided is adjusted) . Regarding claim 10 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: determining from the measurements of powder material consumption supplementary amounts of powder material needed to form further such layers ([0042] - - provide more build material for forming a next layer; the amount of more material is supplementary amount) . Regarding claim 11 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. JOWKAR further teaches: the determined supplementary amounts of powder material are also those needed to form further such accumulations ([0042] - - provide more build material for forming a next layer; the amount of more material is supplementary amount; [0031] - - define a minimum amount of build material) . Regarding claim 12 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Goodwin further teaches: the structured light pattern is projected simultaneously onto both a surface of a formed layer of the powder material and an adjoining accumulation of excess powder material left after formation of that layer, an image is produced of the pattern on both the layer surface and the accumulation and the pattern distortion in the image is evaluated to not only determine the volume of the accumulation of excess powder, but also to identify defects in the layer surface (Abstract - - real time metrology of the powder bed and the recently printed layer; detection and diagnosis of printing defects) . JOWKAR and Goodwin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth. Regarding claim 13 , the combination of JOWKAR and Goodwin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Goodwin further teaches: the pattern is projected onto the layer surface and the accumulation by a common projecting system and the projected pattern on the layer surface and the accumulation is imaged by a common imaging system (Fig. 17A, 17B, [0369]-0374] - - a common imaging system to image the whole powder bed) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9872 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kamini Shah can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2279 . 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. /YUHUI R PAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116