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 1-2, 5-6, 9, 16-17, 20-21, and 24 are pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 16-17, 20-21, and 24 have been amended. Claims 3-4, 7-8, 18-19, and 22-23 have been canceled. Claims 10-15 have been previously canceled. Claims 16-17, 20-21, and 24 have been withdrawn. The amendments are extensive, and the prior rejections are withdrawn in favor of new rejections with a change in the primary reference. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn. The rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn because claim 1, as amended, recites calibrating the weights to get the power from various fusing modules correct, thereby reciting an improvement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 20018/0243989) in view of Donovan (US 2018/0009171).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper discloses a method comprising: determining, by processing circuitry, a first energy vector and a first weights vector (light engine slice energy data in an overlap zone for multiple light engines, [0016] [0044] [0051-55], Figs. 6A-B), wherein: the first energy vector specifies amounts of energy respectively supplied in a first additive manufacturing operation by fusing energy modules corresponding to zones of an additive manufacturing apparatus (energy from the light engines, [0016] [0044] [0051-55], Figs. 6A-B), , and
the weights of the first weights vector are proportional to amounts of energy respectively received in the zones in the first additive manufacturing operation (complementary transparency map, goal is to deliver a proportional amount of energy from each light engine to get to 100%, and is proportional to delivered energy, [0016] [0051-55], Figs. 6A-B);
determining, by the processing circuitry, a second energy vector and a second weights vector (Calibration entails correction and changes in light engine slice energy data in an overlap zone, [0016] [0044] [0051-55], Figs. 6A-B), wherein: the second energy vector specifies amounts of energy respectively supplied in a second additive manufacturing operation by the fusing energy modules (energy from the light engines, [0016] [0044] [0051-55], Figs. 6A-B), and the weights of the second weights vector are proportional to amounts of energy respectively received in the zones in the second additive manufacturing operation (complementary transparency map, goal is to deliver a proportional amount of energy from each light engine to get to 100%, [0016] [0051-55], Figs. 6A-B); inferring, a target energy vector of amounts of energy to be respectively supplied by the fusing energy modules in a subsequent additive manufacturing operation to respectively form target objects in the zones with target weights (generating a calibration includes applying a particular quantity of energy for iterations Cooper [0044]), based on the first and second weights vectors, the first and second energy vectors, and a target weights vector specifying the target weights (calibration including compensation for light source output and optical path length, [0044]); and performing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the subsequent additive manufacturing operation to respectively form the target objects in the zones with the target weights (step 72, [0050-52], Fig. 5), wherein the fusing energy modules respectively supply the amounts of energy specified in the target energy vector to the zones in the subsequent additive manufacturing operation, to increase consistency of an extent of fusion of the target objects generated at different positions in a print bed (step 72, [0050-52]).
Cooper teaches a method substantially as claimed. Cooper is not explicit about calibration involving measuring the weights of the produced objects to compare the light delivered to what was expected. Accordingly, Cooper does not disclose the first weights vector specifies weights of first objects respectively formed in the zones in the first additive manufacturing operation, the second weights vector specifies weights of second objects respectively formed in the zones in the second additive manufacturing operation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of calibrating the energy delivered for additive manufacturing (abstract), Donovan teaches the first weights vector specifies weights of first objects respectively formed in the zones in the first additive manufacturing operation (calibration manager determines amount of energy received based on extent of coalescence and/or solidification of objects, [0050]; from an array of near infrared lamps, [0013]), the second weights vector specifies weights of second objects respectively formed in the zones in the second additive manufacturing operation (multiple objects, therefore performing the process multiple times at different energy levels, [0049-50]; generating a graph indicates the repetitions are at different energy levels to permit interpolation and extrapolation, [0052]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cooper to perform the calibration taught in [0042] and [0052] of Cooper by comparing the amount of solidification as taught by [0049-50] of Donovan to check the amount of energy actually delivered.
Regarding claim 2, Cooper as modified teaches wherein: in the first additive manufacturing operation, the fusing energy modules are controlled to provide energy at a same first power level, and in the second additive manufacturing operation, the fusing energy modules are controlled to provide energy at a same second power level (generating a calibration includes applying a particular quantity of energy, hence a same power level for iterations to put together a graph, as modified, Donovan [0027] [0052]; Cooper [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Cooper as modified teaches wherein each of the first and second objects generated in the first and second additive manufacturing operations is generated based on same object model data (generating a graph for each location entails comparisons with object baselines, as modified, Donovan [0052]; Cooper [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Cooper as modified teaches wherein each first object generated in the first additive manufacturing operation corresponds to one of the second objects generated in the second additive manufacturing operation (generating a graph for each location entails comparisons with object baselines, as modified, Donovan [0052]), and corresponding first and second objects generated in the first and second additive manufacturing operations in a same zone are generated based on same object model data (generating a graph for each location entails comparisons with object baselines, as modified Donovan [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Cooper as modified teaches performing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the first and second additive manufacturing operations (as modified, Cooper step 72, [0050-52]; Donovan [0049-50] [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Cooper (US 20018/0243989) in view of Donovan (US 2018/0009171). As correctly pointed out be Applicant, the modification of Donovan in view of Dorini (US 2023/0191694) does not work for the claims as amended. However, relying on Cooper first, which teaches the method except for specifying what feedback measurement is made for calibration does not suffer from this problem, and Donovan remedies the deficiencies of Cooper.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/EMMANUEL S LUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights