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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 87-97 & 108-112 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
All arguments on pages 8-9 are drawn to new and amended claim elements, and will be discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections section.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 101 and the objections to claims 102 & 103 are withdrawn, as they have been corrected by amendment.
The amendments to claims 98-107 and the new claims 113-115 are acknowledged.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 113-115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi (US20100176539A1, of record). Claim elements are presented in italics.
113. An additive manufacturing (AM) apparatus, comprising: a directed energy beam source; a directed energy beam deflector operable to deflect a directed energy beam emitted from the directed energy beam source to scan locations in a patterning field; a camera situated to (i) produce a first image including at least one image of cathodoluminescence, plasma emission, blackbody radiation, or surface damage from the scan locations in the patterning field in response to the directed energy beam, and (ii) produce a second image including an image of a plurality of calibration features on the patterning field; and a deflection driver coupled to the directed energy beam deflector and operable to produce compensated beam deflections based on the first image and the second image.
With respect to claim 113, the prior art of Higashi teaches an additive manufacturing (AM) apparatus, comprising: a directed energy beam source (Fig. 1a, item 31; [0017]); a directed energy beam deflector (Fig. 1a, item 34) operable to deflect a directed energy beam emitted from the directed energy beam source to scan locations in a patterning field, or correction target (Fig. 1a, item 4; [0017-0019]); an imaging camera (Fig. 1a, item 5) situated to (i) produce a first image of a correction mark disposed on the substrate [0024, 0028], with the image processed by an image processor (Fig. 1a, item 52; [0017]), including at least one image of detecting surface damage in the form of through holes formed from the scan locations in the patterning field in response to heat generated by the directed energy beam [0028].
Higashi teaches the AM apparatus (ii) can produce a plurality of images, and can produce a second image which can include a plurality of calibration features on the patterning field [0009-0010, 0017].
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the second image can prima facie obviously comprise the marks taught by Higashi which are created by irradiating light beams onto the powder layer as the ‘marking step’, upon which the control unit subsequently performs a correction analysis [0009].
The Examiner notes that process steps for setting the correction targets, forming a correction mark, and calibrating by measuring and correction the irradiation points is not part of the AM apparatus of Higashi and therefore does not limit its structure. However, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Higashi teaches the components necessary to perform these actions. See MPEP 2114(II).
Higashi teaches a control unit (Fig. 1a, item 6) operates an X-Y driving mechanism as a deflection driver, coupled to and controlling scanning mirror angles to produce compensated beam deflections [0017, 0020], correcting the irradiation points of the light beams L in the second image based on the first image, reducing ‘the disagreement between the location of the correction mark 7 and the predetermined irradiation point to an acceptable value’ [0020].
114. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 113, wherein the deflection driver is operable to process the second image to establish mapping of pixel coordinates in at least one image to patterning field coordinates based on locations of calibration features in the patterning field and the pixel coordinates of the calibration features in the second image.
With respect to claim 114, Higashi teaches the deflection driver is operable to process the second image to establish mapping of pixel coordinates in at least one image to patterning field coordinates based on locations of calibration features in the patterning field and the pixel coordinates of the calibration features in the second image.
Higashi teaches the measurement of the location of the mark in the correction step should be performed by illumination the correction target and imaging the contrast due to the irradiation [0012]; a plurality of marks should be placed for imaging [0013]; and coordinates of the marks on the patterning field can be obtained easily [0014]. Higashi teaches an image of the correction mark formed on the correction target 4 is taken by the imaging camera 5, and the irradiation points of the light beams are corrected on the basis of the image [0018].
115. The additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 114, wherein the deflection driver is operable to establish the compensated beam deflections based on the first image and the mapping.
With respect to claim 115, as set forth in the rejection of claim 114, Higashi teaches the deflection driver is operable to establish the compensated beam deflections based on the first image and the mapping. Higashi teaches a control unit (Fig. 1a, item 6) operates an X-Y driving mechanism as a deflection driver, coupled to and controlling scanning mirror angles to produce compensated beam deflections [0017, 0020].
Claims 98-100 & 102-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi (US20100176539A1, of record), in view of Williams (US20170348900A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
98. An additive manufacturing (AM) apparatus, comprising: a directed energy beam source; a directed energy beam deflector operable to deflect a directed energy beam emitted from the directed energy beam source to scan locations in a patterning field; a camera arranged on an axis that is inclined to a normal of the patterning field, the camera being situated to produce an image including at least one image of cathodoluminescence, plasma emission, blackbody radiation, or surface damage from the scan locations in the patterning field in response to the directed energy beam; and a deflection driver coupled to the directed energy beam deflector and operable to produce compensated beam deflections based on the image.
With respect to claim 98, the prior art of Higashi teaches an additive manufacturing (AM) apparatus, comprising: a light beam oscillator directed energy beam source (Fig. 1a, item 31; [0017]); a scanning head functioning as a directed energy beam deflector (Fig. 1a, item 34) operable to deflect a directed energy beam from the directed energy beam source to scan locations in a patterning field, or correction target (Fig. 1a, item 4; [0017-0019]); an imaging camera (Fig. 1a, item 5) situated to produce an image of a correction mark disposed on the substrate [0024, 0028], with the image processed by an image processor (Fig. 1a, item 52; [0017]), including at least one image of detecting surface damage in the form of through holes formed from the scan locations in the patterning field in response to heat generated by the directed energy beam [0028]. Higashi teaches a control unit operates an X-Y driving mechanism for the camera and controls scanning mirror angles to produce compensated beam deflections [0017, 0020], correcting the irradiation points of the light beams L based on the image, reducing ‘the disagreement between the location of the correction mark 7 and the predetermined irradiation point to an acceptable value’ [0020].
Higashi is silent on the camera being arranged on an axis that is inclined to a normal of the patterning field.
However, in an analogous field of art, the prior art of Williams teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising a hyperspectral camera (Fig. 2, item 108) that is at an inclined angle to a normal of the patterning field. Williams teaches the hyperspectral camera “simultaneously collect scene data (spectral images) in many (e.g., hundreds of) narrow wavelength bands over a broad spectral range in a single image frame. The images captured by the camera are then combined to provide both a spectroscopic map of the image scene and detailed surface data [0034].”
Williams teaches the hyperspectral camera advantageously is angled above the build layer and directed to the deposition tip [0042]; this allows hyperspectral imaging measurement of in-situ deposition of the deposited materials [0034]. This “provides a distinctive advantage over other nondestructive test and evaluation methods” and “provides significantly more data than data that can be obtained from a narrow band or a single wavelength reflectometer [0034].”
From these teachings, although the Williams camera takes in-situ imaging of a material deposition manufacturing process, it would have been prima facie obvious that the camera of Williams could detect surface damage in the form of through holes, similarly to the camera for the lasering process that is taught by Higashi.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the angled hyperspectral camera taught by Williams in place of the camera in the manufacturing method taught by Higashi to predictably obtain the similar advantages of improved surface data which can be taken immediately during deposition (or directed beam) without space interference with the deposition head (or laser) for improved surface data analysis.
99. The AM apparatus of claim 98, wherein the deflection driver is operable to produce the compensated beam deflections based on a mapping of pixel coordinates in the image.
With respect to claim 99, as set forth in the rejection of claim 98, Higashi teaches a deflection driver, ‘a scanner 33 which controls the rotation angle of the scanning mirrors 32, controlled by the control unit 6 [0017]’, coupled to the directed energy beam deflector and operable to produce compensated beam deflections based on a mapping of pixelated coordinates in a processed image by the image processor of the image taken by the imaging camera [0017, 0020].
100. The AM apparatus of claim 98, wherein the directed energy beam is a laser beam.
With respect to claim 100, Higashi teaches the directed energy beam is from a CO2 or YAG laser [0017].
102. The AM apparatus of claim 98, wherein the deflection driver is operable to deflect the directed energy beam to a plurality of scan locations in the patterning field to produce the image.
With respect to claim 102, Higashi teaches the deflection driver is operable to deflect the directed energy beam to a plurality of ‘correction mark’ scan locations (Fig. 6a-b & 9a-b, items 7) in the correction target patterning field (Fig. 6a-b & 9a-b, items 4; [0031]) to produce the first image [0020].
103. The AM apparatus of claim 98, wherein the axis on which the camera is situated is tilted with respect to an axis of the directed energy beam.
With respect to claim 103, as set forth in the rejection of claim 98, Higashi, in view of Williams, teaches the camera (See Williams - Fig. 2, item 108) is at an angle from the patterning field and the directed energy beam, wherein the energy beam is perpendicular to the patterning field (See Higashi - Fig. 1b, item 4) without interference from the camera, allowing in-situ imaging.
Claim 101 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi (US20100176539A1, of record), in view of Williams (US20170348900A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 100, in view of Lehmann (US20200156313A1, of record). Claim elements are presented in italics.
101. The AM apparatus of claim 100, wherein a wavelength of the laser beam is different from a wavelength range imaged by the camera.
With respect to claim 101, as set forth in the rejection of claim 100, the prior art of Higashi teaches a CO2 or YAG laser beam reflected from a substrate reflects the beam to the imaging camera.
Higashi, in view of Williams, is silent on the wavelength range imaged by the camera being different from the wavelength of the directed energy beam which additively manufactures a part.
Williams teaches “the hyperspectral camera 108 may be any conventional hyperspectral camera as long as the camera meets the physical size, spectral bandwidth, and resolution needs for the task”, and provides several applicable camera options for the deposition manufacturing process [0037]. This however does not explicitly teach compatibility with the laser beam process of Higashi, as Higashi and Williams are silent on the Higashi laser operating at wavelengths different from the camera of Williams.
However, in an analogous field of art, the prior art of Lehmann teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising a calibration device with a camera for a detection device [0073]. Lehmann teaches a laser beam passes from a laser source (Fig. 3, item 33) through a scanning device, deflection unit, and a wavelength-selective optical element (Fig. 3, item 38) in order to reach the camera [0070]. Lehmann teaches the wavelength-selective optical element only allows a wavelength range to reach the camera that is optimized for the detection settings of the camera [0070]. This prima facie obviously teaches the wavelength of the manufacturing laser beam is different from a reference wavelength range imaged by the camera.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the optical components (Fig. 3) and laser path, taught by Lehmann, in place of the optical components and laser path taught by Higashi, in view of Williams, to predictably result in similar results for calibration and additive manufacturing between the apparatus of Lehmann and the modified apparatus. The wavelength-selective optical element taught by Lehmann would advantageously provide a filtered laser wavelength range to the camera in the apparatus of Higashi, in view of Williams and Lehmann, wherein the wavelength range would be optimized for the camera’s detection settings.
Claims 104-107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi (US20100176539A1, of record), in view of Williams (US20170348900A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 98, in view of Own (US20190287759A1, of record). Claim elements are presented in italics.
104. The AM apparatus of claim 99, further comprising a memory storing nominal beam deflections associated with the scan locations.
With respect to claim 104, Higashi teaches a deflection driver, ‘a scanner 33 which controls the rotation angle of the scanning mirrors 32, controlled by the control unit 6 [0017]’, coupled to the directed energy beam deflector and operable to produce compensated beam deflections based on a mapping of pixelated coordinates in a processed image by the image processor of the image taken by the imaging camera [0017, 0020].
Higashi teaches an AM apparatus comprising a laser and a beam deflector (Fig. 1a, item 34).
Higashi is silent on a memory storing nominal beam deflections associated with the scan locations, although a memory may be required for the Higashi teachings of repeating and correcting irradiation points (Fig. 3, item S5).
However, in a related field of art, the prior art of Own teaches an electron microscope, comprising: a directed energy beam source (Fig. 1, item 35; [0036]); a directed energy beam deflector can be implemented to deflect a directed energy beam from the directed energy beam source to scan locations in a patterning field [0072, 0168].
Own teaches a controller may control the apparatus to perform any desired functions, such as scanning the sample and generating the images or transferring images to memory [0191].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use a known memory device while scanning sample locations and generate the images or transfer images to memory, taught by Own, to improve the similar energy beam scanning device taught by Higashi in the same way, resulting in the ability to store beam deflections and scanned image information.
105. The AM apparatus of claim 104, wherein the memory stores nominal deflection values associated with the scan locations and associated patterning field coordinates.
With respect to claim 105, as set forth in the rejection of claim 104, Own teaches the memory can store scanning information, generating the images or transferring images to memory; prima facie obviously teaching storing nominal deflection values associated with the scan locations and associated patterning field coordinates.
106. The AM apparatus of claim 105, wherein the deflection driver is operable to establish the mapping of the pixel coordinates in the image to patterning field coordinates based on locations of calibration features in the patterning field.
With respect to claim 106, Higashi teaches the deflection driver is operable to establish the mapping of the pixel coordinates in the first image to patterning field coordinates based on locations of cross or circle-shaped calibration features (Figs. 10 & 11, items 7) in the patterning field [0014, 0015, 0019, 0033].
107. The AM apparatus of claim 105, wherein the deflection driver is operable to receive a part specification and produce the compensated beam deflections with the directed energy beam deflector in response to the part specification.
With respect to claim 107, Higashi teaches the deflection driver is operable to additively manufacture a part by producing compensated beam deflections with the directed energy beam deflector in response to commands from the control unit [0022-0023].
Higashi teaches that after the corrective calibration steps (Fig. 3, items S3-S6) are performed [0019-0020], the control unit operates the additive manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 3, items S7-S11) to form a molded article(s) [0021-0023].
Higashi does not explicitly teach the detailed steps of ‘receiving a part specification’, and ‘directing a compensated beam in response to the part specification’.
However, these steps would have been commonly known and prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to be necessary in order to perform the layer-by-layer [0021] selective sintering step [0022] controlled by the control unit which renders the scanning head [0022] to manufacture a sintered part [0023].
The control unit prima facie obviously must have received and used a part specification to have been able to control the layer-by-layer sintering process for creating the part.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights