DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Information Disclosure Statement, filed 31 August 2026 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claims 16-30 are pending.
Claims 16-30 are rejected, grounds follow.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS FINAL, see additional information at the conclusion of this action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Application’s status as a 35 USC 371 national stage application of PCT application PCT/EP2022/066095 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 5, filed 10 July 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 21 and agrees the amendment moots the reason for the rejection. Accordingly, The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 5 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claim 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 30 and agrees the amendment moots the reasons for the rejection. Accordingly, The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Page 5 et seq., with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 16, 18-22, and 28-30 (claim 16 representative) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Ray differs from the claimed invention and fails to recite the steps “setting a second optical configuration… directing the laser beam… with a second focus spot size… and measuring a second position… of the laser beam generated with the second optical configuration”;(truncated for brevity); Applicant also alleges that the claimed invention “feature[s] a single optical system”, whereas Ray uses a plurality of optical units; and Applicant alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Ray in view of Spink to use a variable focus size as taught by Spink. Examiner notes for clarity of the record that the particular limitations at issue are rejected over a combination of Ray in view of Spink.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that there must be only one optical unit, that the ‘at least one correction value’ must be apparently a temporal or vertical correction and not a lateral correction between several beams) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In particular the claim clearly recites “at least one optical unit”, and the specification clearly discloses that a plurality of optical units may produce a plurality of beams (specification page 5), and the claim does not limit the nature of the correction beyond the requirement that is based on both measurements, i.e. there is no requirement in the claim that the correction is based solely on these two measurements and no other parameters or measurements; nor is there a requirement that the correction not be lateral calibration between a plurality of adjustable beams.
Further, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Spink cures the alleged deficiency of Ray when viewed in combination with Ray because Spink teaches, inter alia, [0232] “The type-2 energy beam and type-1 energy beam may be generated by the same (e.g., type of) energy source, or by different energy sources. The type-2 energy beam and type-1 energy beam may be directed by the same (e.g., type of) scanner, or to different scanners (e.g., FIGS. 1, 114 and 120). The type-2 energy beam and type-1 energy beam may travel through by the same (e.g., type of) optical window, or through different optical windows (e.g., 115, and 135) on their way to a target surface.” [0221] “For example, the type-2 energy beam and the type-1 energy beam may differ in their cross section (e.g., with the type-2 energy beam having a larger cross section than the type-1 energy beam).”) and provides a motivation for making these modifications as articulated by the Examiner in the non-final rejection and repeated below for completeness of the record. For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 24-27 in view of Neumann, Examiner acknowledges Applicant may have a right to traverse the rejection with a 35 USC 102(b)(2) showing of joint ownership/assignment/disclosure, as noted in Applicant’s Remarks and in the non-final rejection mailed 04 June 2026 (see Page 18), However, until the requirements outlined in 37 CFR 1.130 are made of record, the rejections shall be maintained. See generally MPEP 717.02.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18-22, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0206817 in view of Spink et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0250745.
Regarding Claim 16, Ray teaches:
A method for calibrating ([0034] “as part of step 24, the fusing apparatus 16 can be calibrated using a calibration procedure”) a position of a laser beam (fig. 1 beams 18) in an apparatus (fig. 1, system 2) comprising at least one optical unit for directing the laser beam, ([0027] “fusing apparatus 16 is configured to form and scan a plurality of energy beams 18 over the upper surface 12 of dispensed powder 15”) the at least one optical unit comprising a plurality of optical elements, (e.g. laser emitters) the method comprising: setting a first optical configuration for the plurality of optical elements of the at least one optical unit and thereby directing the laser beam onto a measurement plane with a first focus spot size; ([0034] “For an individual beam, the controller directs the fusing apparatus 16 to direct the beam to impinge upon a particular location on the surface…)
Measuring a first position within the measurement plane, of the laser beam generated with the first optical configuration; (ibid. [0034] “…The detection system then determines the actual location of the impingement.”)
setting a second optical configuration for the plurality of optical elements of the at least one optical unit and thereby directing the laser beam onto the measurement plane with a second focus spot size ([0034] “This can be repeated a number of times to determine an average error and standard deviation.”)
measuring a second position within the measurement plane, of the laser beam generated with the second optical configuration; (ibid. i.e. “repeated” measurements.)
and determining at least one correction value based on the measured first position and the measured second position. ([0034] “The average errors for different beams 18 can be used to align the beams. The standard deviation (lateral variation for a single intended location) can be used to determine the lateral alignment uncertainty.”)
Ray differs from the claimed invention in that:
Ray appears to be silent as to whether the second beam may have a spot size which [is] different from the first focus spot size;
However, Spink teaches an apparatus for 3D printing (see fig. 1) where a first and second beam may be generated from same or different beam sources ([0022] “generating a first energy beam from a first energy source. In some embodiments, (c) comprises generating the second energy beam from a second energy source. In some embodiments, the first energy source is the same as the second energy source.”) where the first and second beam may have different spot sizes ([0022] “the energy beam in (c) is a tiling energy beam. In some embodiments, a spot size of a hatching energy beam is smaller than a spot size of the tiling energy beam.”) which may be realized by adjusting the configuration of a plurality of lenses (see [0256])
Spink is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include setting the second configuration of the beam emitter to a second spot size that is different from the first spot size, as suggested by Spink.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to control the thickness of the outer skin of the manufactured object as suggested by Spink ([0354] “the aligned melt pools form a skin (e.g., 4904) of the object. The skin can be coupled with (e.g., chemically (e.g., metallicaly[sic]) bonded) an interior portion (also referred to as a core) (e.g., 2902). In some embodiments, the melt pools of the skin have widths that span a thickness (e.g., 4911) of the skin. The thickness of the skin may vary depending on the application (e.g., function) of the object.”)
Regarding Claim 18, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Ray further teaches:
storing a first position data set based on the measured first position; ([0034] “The detection system then determines the actual location of the impingement. The controller 20 can compare the actual location to an intended location and then compute a lateral error in X and Y.”)
and storing a second position data set based on the measured second position, ([0034] “This can be repeated a number of times to determine an average error and standard deviation.”)
wherein the determining comprises determining the at least one correction value (e.g. the lateral alignment uncertainty) based on the first position data set and the second position data set. ([0032] “the controller estimates a lateral alignment uncertainty between at least two different energy beams 18 of the plurality of energy beams 18. The lateral alignment uncertainty is generally defined along the axis T within the build plane 19.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Ray further teaches:
applying the at least one correction value during use of the apparatus, (see e.g. figs. 4-6 and e.g. [0033] “According to 26, a number N of transversely offset scans is selected for forming a contour. The number N is selected at least partially based upon the lateral alignment uncertainty.”) such that a relationship between a position of the laser beam in the first optical configuration and a position of the laser beam in the second optical configuration is known. ([0034] “The average errors for different beams 18 can be used to align the beams. The standard deviation (lateral variation for a single intended location) can be used to determine the lateral alignment uncertainty.” See e.g. figs. 4-6 and [0038]-[0041] describing various operations based on the determined calibration relationship between the alignments.)
Regarding Claim 20, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Ray further teaches:
determining at least one correction value for a third optical configuration by performing an interpolation or extrapolation on the basis of the at least one correction value. (see e.g. [0023] “The lateral alignment uncertainty is at with respect to at least the first beam and the second beam. The number N is an integer at least equal to one. The determination is based upon the lateral alignment uncertainty. The plurality of energy beams can include a third beam.”)
Regarding Claim 21, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Spink further teaches:
wherein setting the second optical configuration for the plurality of optical elements of the at least one optical unit comprises changing a position of at least two optical elements. ([0256] “the astigmatism system includes two or more optical elements (e.g., lenses. FIG. 23, 2310, 2330). The optical elements may diverge or converge an irradiating energy (e.g., beam) that travels therethrough. The optical elements may have a constant focus. The optical elements may have a variable focus. At times, the optical element may converge the rays of the energy beam. At times, the optical element may diverge the rays of the energy beam. … For example, the first medium (e.g., 2315) may translate along the Z axis (e.g., 2320), the second medium (e.g., 2325) may translate along the Y axis (e.g., 2350), and the irradiating energy (e.g., 2305) may travel along the X axis. The distance between the media may be such that they do not collide with each other when translating (e.g., rotating).”)
Regarding Claim 22, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Ray teaches:
while in the first optical configuration, irradiating the measurement plane according to a first irradiation pattern; and while in the second optical configuration, irradiating the measurement plane according to a second irradiation pattern. (see fig. 3, and [0021] “ Operating the fusing device includes operating a plurality of energy beams including operating at least the first beam to fuse a first hatch pattern over an area of the layer of powder and operating at least the second beam to fuse a contour using N sequential scans along the contour.”)
And Spink also teaches:
while in the first optical configuration, irradiating the measurement plane according to a first irradiation pattern; and while in the second optical configuration, irradiating the measurement plane according to a second irradiation pattern. (figs 28A-D and [0223] “The use of a type-1 energy beam or type-2 energy beam may depend, in part, on the geometry of the 3D object. For example, a type-1 energy beam can be used to form a contour (which can be referred to as a rim, skin (e.g., thickness of the skin), or perimeter portion) of a 3D object. For example, a type-2 energy beam can be used to form an interior portion (also referred to as “core”) of the 3D object.” nb. See figs. 14A/B for examples of the spot size difference between the two types of beams.)
Regarding Claim 28, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Spink further teaches:
wherein the second focus spot size is larger than the first focus spot size by a factor of at least 1.5, at least 2, at least 3, at least 4, at least 5, at least 6, at least 7, or at least 8. ([0251] “FIG. 14A, a narrow high power (e.g., hatching) energy beam forms an elongated, a small diameter, and deep melt pool… FIG. 14B shows an example of a type-2 energy beam… the irradiating type-2 energy beam forms a wide, symmetric, conductive, and deep melt pool” see also [0242] describing various contemplated spot sizes which cover ranges of at least 1.5x to several orders of magnitude (e.g. nanometers to millimeters) relative to the type-1 beam.)
Regarding Claim 29, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Ray teaches:
wherein the apparatus is an apparatus for generating a three-dimensional work piece via selective laser sintering and/or selective laser melting ([0014] “a system for forming a three-dimensional (3D) article includes a powder dispenser, a fusing apparatus, and a controller.”)
and wherein the method further comprises: irradiating a contour of a layer of a three-dimensional work piece with the first focus spot size; (see fig. 3, [0021] “Operating the fusing device includes operating a plurality of energy beams including… operating at least the second beam to fuse a contour using N sequential scans along the contour.”)
and irradiating a core portion of the three-dimensional work piece within the contour (see fig. 3 [0021] “Operating the fusing device includes operating a plurality of energy beams including operating at least the first beam to fuse a first hatch pattern over an area of the layer of powder”)
wherein a position of the laser beam for irradiating at least one of the contour and the core portion is corrected by the at least one correction value. (see figs. 4-6 and [0033] “[0033] According to 26, a number N of transversely offset scans is selected for forming a contour. The number N is selected at least partially based upon the lateral alignment uncertainty. In one embodiment, the selected value for N can be a monotonically increasing function of the lateral alignment uncertainty. In another embodiment, the selected value for N can be generally proportional to the lateral alignment uncertainty. In yet another embodiment, the selected value for N times a melt width is at least equal to the lateral alignment uncertainty.”)
And Spink teaches:
irradiating a core portion of the three-dimensional work piece (Spink [0223] “For example, a type-2 energy beam can be used to form an interior portion (also referred to as “core”) of the 3D object.”) within the contour ([0223] “For example, a type-1 energy beam can be used to form a contour (which can be referred to as a rim, skin (e.g., thickness of the skin), or perimeter portion) of a 3D object.”) with the second focus spot size larger than the first focus spot size, (Spink [0221] “For example, the type-2 energy beam and the type-1 energy beam may differ in their cross section (e.g., with the type-2 energy beam having a larger cross section than the type-1 energy beam).”)
Regarding Claim 30, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Ray further teaches:
A non-transitory computer program product which, when carried out by a processor of an apparatus comprising at least one optical unit for generating a laser beam, the at least one optical unit comprising a plurality of optical elements, instructs the apparatus to carry out a method according to claim 16. (see [0023] “a computer-readable storage medium is for manufacturing a three-dimensional (3D) article. The computer-readable storage medium is non-transitory and has computer-readable program code portions stored therein. In response to execution by a processor the computer-readable code portions cause a 3D printing system to determine a lateral alignment uncertainty for a system”)
Claim(s) 17 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Spink, further in view of Zeulner et al., US Pg-Pub 2019/0240906.
Regarding Claim 17, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: [setting either the first and/or second configuration comprises] focusing the laser beam onto the measurement plane.
However, Zeulner teaches a beam calibration technique for an addictive manufacturing apparatus (see fig. 1) which includes focusing the laser beam onto the measurement plane ([0050] “As depicted in FIG. 4, the energy beam 5 is focused on a focal position 26, for example the build plane 11.”) as part of the calibration process.
Zeulner is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include focusing the laser beam onto the measurement plane as suggested by Zeulner.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect whether the laser beam is improperly focused. ([0020] “a determination can be made, whether the energy beam is properly focused or, whether a deviation from a nominal focal position is present. It is possible to perform an intensity measurement or a comparison of the spot size of the sub-part that is incident on the detector to verify whether the nominal focal position is met.”)
Regarding Claim 23, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: [wherein the first irradiation pattern and the second irradiation pattern] are irradiated onto at least one sensor positioned in the measurement plane.
However, Zeulner teaches a beam calibration technique for an addictive manufacturing apparatus (see fig. 1) which includes irradiating sensors (fig. 1, “determination devices 8”) which are positioned in the measurement plane ([0044] The determination devices 8 are arranged in fixed positions in a process plane 9 that is a bottom wall delimiting the process chamber 6. The determination devices 8 are arranged in defined positions that are distributed over the process plane 9, in particular along the sidelines delimiting a build plane 11.”)
Zeulner is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include focusing the laser beam onto detectors arranged in the measurement plane as suggested by Zeulner.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect whether the laser beam is improperly focused. ([0020] “a determination can be made, whether the energy beam is properly focused or, whether a deviation from a nominal focal position is present. It is possible to perform an intensity measurement or a comparison of the spot size of the sub-part that is incident on the detector to verify whether the nominal focal position is met.”)
Claim(s) 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Spink, further in view of Neumann et al., US Pg-Pub 2022/0193785.
The applied reference (US Pg-Pub 2022/0193785) has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 24, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: [wherein the first irradiation pattern and the second irradiation pattern] are projected or burnt onto a foil or plate or powder layer positioned in the measurement plane.
However, Neumann teaches a beam calibration technique for an addictive manufacturing apparatus (see [0008] and fig. 5) where the irradiation calibration pattern is projected onto a plate positioned in the measurement plane (Neumann [0037] “the device or apparatus comprises a reference plate comprising one or more markings with known positions, wherein the device or apparatus is configured to: determine a position, in particular in a first direction, of a said marking with respect to a pattern projected”)
Neumann is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include irradiating a reference plate in the measurement plane with the pattern, as suggested by Neumann.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide known markings for correcting for image distortion in the measurement process, as suggested by Neumann ([0065] “Examples according to the present disclosure may also be used to determine the position of one or more markings on a reference plate. If a correspondingly manufactured reference plate is inserted (for example flat glass ceramic with low thermal expansion such as Nextrema® or Zerodur®) on which corresponding markings are applied (for example grids of holes and/or recesses and/or elevations), an exact measurement of these markings can be used to calculate an image field correction file for the respective scanner”)
Regarding Claim 25, Ray in view of Spink, further in view of Neumann teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 24,
Neumann further teaches:
Before the step of measuring the first position and before the step of measuring the second position, observing the first irradiation pattern and the second irradiation pattern with the human eye and, based on the observing, deciding that the step of measuring the first position and the step of measuring the second position shall be carried out. ([0128] “The procedure can be automated, simplifies the operation of the machine and eliminates subjective influences during setup by the operator.” i.e. disclosing that the procedure may alternatively be at least partly manual during setup by an operator.)
Regarding Claim 26, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: wherein the first irradiation pattern comprises a first circle and the second irradiation pattern comprises a second circle concentric to the first circle.
However, Neumann teaches a beam calibration technique for an addictive manufacturing apparatus (see [0008] and fig. 5) where the irradiation calibration pattern is a pair of concentric circles from the two beams ([0027] “first irradiation beam and the second irradiation beam. The first and second irradiation patterns may, in some examples, be concentric circles”)
Neumann is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include concentric circle irradiation patterns, as suggested by Neumann.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification because Neumann teaches that concentric circles are a suitable pattern for calibration of laser beams in additive manufacturing (see [0027]) and the selection of the specific pattern appears to be a matter of design choice. (see MPEP 2144.04.VI citing in re Japikse 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding Claim 27, Ray in view of Spink further in view of Neumann teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 26,
Ray further teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of optical units ([0027] “A fusing apparatus 16 is configured to form and scan a plurality of energy beams 18… An energy beam 18 can be a high powered optical beam, a particle beam, or an electron beam.”)
And Spink also teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of optical units ([0013] “In some embodiments, the one or more controllers is programmed to direct different energy sources to generate the first and second energy beams.”)
And Neumann further teaches:
wherein a set of concentric circles is irradiated for each of the optical units. ([0027] “the apparatus further comprises a first said irradiation beam scanner for scanning the first irradiation beam over the irradiation plane based on a first irradiation beam pattern, and a second said irradiation beam scanner for scanning the second irradiation beam over the irradiation plane based on a second irradiation beam pattern,” [0027] “The first and second irradiation patterns may, in some examples, be concentric circles, lines, alternating lines, a nonius pattern.” )
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Spink, further in view of Redler et al., US Pg-Pub 2023/0084652.
Regarding Claim 23, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: [wherein the first irradiation pattern and the second irradiation pattern] are irradiated onto at least one sensor positioned in the measurement plane.
However, Redler teaches a beam calibration technique for an addictive manufacturing apparatus (see fig. 1) which includes irradiating a sensor positioned in the measurement plane (Scanning Field Plate 26, see [0031] “there is a scanning field plate 26. This scanning field plate 26 is made of a material in which markings can be written by irradiating the laser beam L. To this end, for example, anodised aluminium plates are used, but other suitable materials which can be written on with a laser beam typically used for melting material powder in such systems can also be considered.”)
Redler is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include focusing the laser beam onto an etchable sensor plate as suggested by Redler.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce a permanent field plate which may be marked with a control number ([0019] “By creating the unique identification element directly on the scanning field plate while performing the calibration… the creation of optical reference points is dispensed with in favour of known mechanical positioning data”) and measured by a dedicated pattern recognition device for increased precision of measurement ([0016] “determining the relative positionings and, if necessary, adjusting the calibration data set in an automated manner using a readout device which is configured to determine the relative positionings using pattern recognition. In this way, the method according to the invention can be carried out in an automated manner, which can further improve the efficiency and precision thereof.”)
Regarding Claim 24, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: [wherein the first irradiation pattern and the second irradiation pattern] are projected or burnt onto a foil or plate or powder layer positioned in the measurement plane.
However, Redler teaches a beam calibration technique for an addictive manufacturing apparatus (see fig. 1) which includes irradiating an etchable plate positioned in the measurement plane (Scanning Field Plate 26, see [0031] “there is a scanning field plate 26. This scanning field plate 26 is made of a material in which markings can be written by irradiating the laser beam L. To this end, for example, anodised aluminium plates are used, but other suitable materials which can be written on with a laser beam typically used for melting material powder in such systems can also be considered.”)
Redler is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include focusing the laser beam onto an etchable sensor plate as suggested by Redler.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce a permanent field plate which may be marked with a control number ([0019] “By creating the unique identification element directly on the scanning field plate while performing the calibration… the creation of optical reference points is dispensed with in favour of known mechanical positioning data”) and measured by a dedicated pattern recognition device for increased precision of measurement ([0016] “determining the relative positionings and, if necessary, adjusting the calibration data set in an automated manner using a readout device which is configured to determine the relative positionings using pattern recognition. In this way, the method according to the invention can be carried out in an automated manner, which can further improve the efficiency and precision thereof.”)
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Spink further in view of Anneton et al., US Pg-Pub 2023/0234133.
Regarding Claim 24, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: [wherein the first irradiation pattern and the second irradiation pattern] are projected or burnt onto a foil or plate or powder layer positioned in the measurement plane.
However, Anneton teaches a calibration technique for an additive manufacturing system (fig. 1 [0080] “additive manufacturing apparatus 302”) which projects the calibration pattern (“test marking”, see e.g. [0043]) onto a plate in the measurement plane ([0080] “The removable calibration plate 10 is able to be positioned in a firing system 300 firing the at least one powerful incident-radiation beam F, which system belongs to a selective-printing or an additive manufacturing apparatus 302”)
Anneton is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include focusing the laser beam onto an etchable sensor plate as suggested by Anneton.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the precision of the calibration process as suggested by Anneton ([0120] “The test marking 40 may be created on the plate 10 close to the given theoretical target position 14 in order to improve the identification of the firing position and therefore the precision of the calibration.”)
Regarding Claim 25, Ray in view of Spink, further in view of Anneton teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 24,
Anneton further teaches:
Before the step of measuring the first position and before the step of measuring the second position, observing the first irradiation pattern and the second irradiation pattern with the human eye and, based on the observing, deciding that the step of measuring the first position and the step of measuring the second position shall be carried out. ([0107] “during a step E12 (that comes after step E1 and before step E2), the centering offset (in mm), on the calibration plate 10, between a first impact IMP1 of the other laser beam and its intended theoretical position at the center C of the sighting mark 50 is identified roughly and manually with the naked eye using a graduated ruler (or any other tool for visually measuring distance using the naked eye or using the naked-eye visual distance-identifying device described hereinbelow), as illustrated by way of example in FIG. 7. The naked-eye visual distance-identifying device may be the aforementioned patterns of the positioning sighting mark 50, with the aid of which the distance between the first impact IMP1 and the center C situated at the center of these patterns can be measured with the naked eye by counting the number of patterns present between the center C and the first impact IMP1.”)
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Spink, further in view of Buhr, US Pg-Pub 2021/0170484.
Regarding Claim 26, Ray in view of Spink teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Ray in view of Spink differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references appear to be silent regarding: wherein the first irradiation pattern comprises a first circle and the second irradiation pattern comprises a second circle concentric to the first circle.
However, Buhr teaches a calibration technique for an additive manufacturing system (see fig. 1) which uses irradiation patterns for calibrating laser beams which are concentric circles ([0038] “Within the measurement artifact group 68, at least one measurement artifact is created by each one of the beam generators 24A, 24B.” [0041] “In the illustrated example, this predetermined pattern comprises a two-dimensional array of concentric circle pairs” )
Buhr is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser-fusing additive manufacturing (e.g. powder-bed 3D printers).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Ray to include producing a calibration pattern that is concentric circles, as suggested by Buhr.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification because Buhr teaches that concentric circles are a pattern that may be readily identified for measurement. ([0041] “In the illustrated example, this predetermined pattern comprises a two-dimensional array of concentric circle pairs. Numerous other shapes and sizes of measurement artifacts may be used, including but not limited to points, lines, hashmarks, polygons, or open or closed curves, so long as they may be readily identified for measurement.”)
Regarding Claim 27, Ray in view of Spink further in view of Buhr teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 26,
Ray further teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of optical units ([0027] “A fusing apparatus 16 is configured to form and scan a plurality of energy beams 18… An energy beam 18 can be a high powered optical beam, a particle beam, or an electron beam.”)
And Spink also teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of optical units ([0013] “In some embodiments, the one or more controllers is programmed to direct different energy sources to generate the first and second energy beams.”)
And Buhr further teaches:
wherein a set of concentric circles is irradiated for each of the optical units. ([0038] “Within the measurement artifact group 68, at least one measurement artifact is created by each one of the beam generators 24A, 24B.”)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights