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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16-24 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-9. Claim 16 and claims 17-24 depending therefrom, do not share a unity of invention with originally filed claim 1 because original claim 1 is anticipated by Donovan (US 2018/0009171) as detailed in the office action mailed on May 23, 2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-24 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 and 16-24 are pending. Claims 16-24 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-9 have been amended. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in favor of a new objection in view of the amendment. The prior art rejection is withdrawn in favor of a new prior art rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 24-25, claim 1 recites the character combination “,;” It is believed that Applicant intended to only include a semicolon there. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental step including a mental step without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “[a] method comprising: acquiring, by processing circuitry, a first indication of an extent of fusion of build material forming a first object generated by an additive manufacturing apparatusenergy module; and performing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the subsequent additive manufacturing operations based on the corresponding calibrated energy levels for the fusing energy modules.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because determining calibrated energy levels based on input of measured extent of fusion is a mental step. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere data gathering constitutes insignificant presolution activity and “subsequent additive manufacturing operations” such as further calibration, constitute insignificant extra solution activity.
Claims 2, 4-9 recite further details on the data gathering, and these claims are also ineligible. Claim 9’s recitation of performing the first and second additive manufacturing operations feed into the data gathering and are therefore part of the data gathering steps. Claim 3 recites further details on the abstract idea, about the relationship between energy level delivered and the physical attribute of the first and second objects. The claim is not therefore made eligible.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (US 2018/0009171) in view of Dorini (US 2023/0191694) and Cooper (US 20018/0243989).
Regarding claim 1, Donovan discloses a method comprising, acquiring, by processing circuitry: a first indication of an extent of fusion of build material forming a first object generated by an additive manufacturing apparatus in a 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]) in which fusing energy modules of the additive manufacturing apparatus that respectively correspond to zones of the additive manufacturing apparatus provided energy at a first energy level (array of near infrared lamps, [0013]); acquiring, by the processing circuitry, a second indication of an extent of fusion of build material forming a second object generated by the additive manufacturing apparatus in a second additive manufacturing operation (multiple objects, therefore performing the process multiple times, [0050]) in which fusing energy modules of the additive manufacturing apparatus that respectively correspond to zones of the additive manufacturing apparatus provided energy at a second energy level (array of near infrared lamps, locations targeted, [0013]) different from the first energy level (generating a graph indicates the repetitions are at different energy levels to permit interpolation and extrapolation, [0052]); for each zone, determining, by the processing circuitry, an energy contribution of each fusing energy module to the zone (energy level applied and measured for the multiple objects, [0049-50]),; respectively determining, by the processing circuitry and based on the first and second indications of the extent of fusion and the energy contributions of the fusing energy modules to the zones, a corresponding calibrated energy levels for the fusing energy modules (generating a calibration based on these measurements, [0053-56]), and and performing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the subsequent additive manufacturing operations based on the corresponding calibrated energy levels [to be delivered by] the a fusing energy modules ([0042]).
Donovan teaches a method substantially as claimed. Donovan does not disclose the calibrated energy level specifying a particular energy level to be output by the at least one fusing energy module. Donovan differs from the claimed subject matter in that Donovan calibrates the energy delivered by adjusting the amount of fusing agent delivered.
However, in the same field of endeavor of calibrating the energy delivered for additive manufacturing (abstract, [0091]), Dorini teaches a method of calibrating energy modules ([0091]), the method comprising the calibrated energy level specifying a particular energy level to be output by the fusing energy modules ([0091]) and performing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the subsequent additive manufacturing operations based on the corresponding calibrated energy levels for the fusing energy modules (abstract, [0047] [0091]).
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 Donovan to calibrate the heat of the infrared lamps rather than the amount of fusing agent added because [0091] of Dorini teaches that these are art recognized equivalents to adjusting the energy absorbed by the powder bed.
Donovan in view of Dorini teaches a method substantially as claimed. Donovan does not disclose wherein each zone receives energy output by more than one fusing energy module, and for each fusing energy module, the zone to which the fusing energy module corresponds receives a greatest amount of the energy output by the fusing energy module and one or more other zones receive lesser amounts of the energy output by the fusing energy module and the corresponding calibrated energy level for a first fusing energy module is different from the corresponding calibrated energy level for a second fusing energy module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of calibrating the energy delivered for additive manufacturing ([0003] [0044]), Cooper teaches wherein each zone receives energy output by more than one fusing energy module (overlap zones, [0016]), and for each fusing energy module, the zone to which the fusing energy module corresponds receives a greatest amount of the energy output by the fusing energy module and one or more other zones receive lesser amounts of the energy output by the fusing energy module (in overlapping area, energy delivered by one fusing energy module differs from that of the other except at an intersection point, [0051], Figs. 6A-B) and the corresponding calibrated energy level for a first fusing energy module is different from the corresponding calibrated energy level for a second fusing energy module (calibrating by adjusting light source output, [0044] [0051]).
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 further modified the method of Donovan for the laser array to have overlapping zones and calibrating accordingly because the abstract of Cooper teaches that doing so compensates for edge defects and artifacts and [0044] of Cooper teaches doing so by adjusting the energy delivered from the different sources.
Regarding claim 2, Donovan 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, Donovan [0027] [0052]; Cooper [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Donovan as modified teaches wherein determining the corresponding calibrated energy level comprises inferring corresponding energy levels for the fusing energy modules that would result in an object having a nominal physical attribute, based on a predetermined relationship between total energies respectively contributed to the zones by the fusing energy modules and the acquired first and second indications of the extent of fusion of the first and second objects (interpolated curve or lookup table, Donovan [0054]; as modified, energy from the multiple energy modules to the zone as per [0044] of Cooper).
Regarding claim 4, Donovan as modified teaches acquiring the first indication of the extent of fusion comprises acquiring an indication of a weight of each of a plurality of objects generated in the zones in the first additive manufacturing operation (weight of completed objects, Donovan [0050]; in overlapping zones as per [0044] of Cooper), acquiring the second indication of the extent of fusion comprises acquiring an indication of a weight of each of a plurality of objects generated in the zones in the second additive manufacturing operation (weight of completed objects entails a second iteration, Donovan [0050]; in overlapping zones for energy from the multiple fusing energy modules as per [0044] of Cooper; note that this is testing at each location cross referenced with other factors Donovan [0025])..
Regarding claim 5, Donovan as modified teaches wherein each object 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, Donovan [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Donovan as modified teaches wherein each object generated in the first additive manufacturing operation corresponds to an object generated in the second additive manufacturing operation (generating a graph for each location entails comparisons with object baselines, Donovan [0052]), wherein corresponding 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, Donovan [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Donovan as modified teaches for each zone, determining, by the processing circuitry, an average weight of a set of objects associated with the zone of the additive manufacturing apparatus (generating a graph with repeated testing would entail averages as a basic way of managing data and controlling for data noise, Donovan [0052]; as per [0044] of Cooper, done for each overlapping zone).
Regarding claim 8, Donovan as modified teaches the first and second indications of the extent of fusion respectively, comprise weights of the first and second objects (weight of completed objects, Donovan [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Donovan as modified teaches performing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the first and second additive manufacturing operations (manufacturing the objects entails first and second additive manufacturing operations, Donovan [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 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 in view of Cooper (US 20018/0243989). As correctly pointed out be Applicant, Donovan differs from the claimed subject matter in that zones receive different amounts from the fusing energy modules. This deficiency is remedied by Cooper, which teaches calibration of multiple fusing energy modules with overlapping zones.
Conclusion
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
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744