DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the heating laser beam”; however, “a heating laser beam” is not recited within the instant claim and/or the claim from which the instant claim depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the heating image pattern”; however, “a heating image pattern” is not recited within the instant claim and/or the claim from which the instant claim depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2020/0094478) in view of Voit et al. (US 2022/0088873).
Regarding claim 1, Zediker teaches an additive manufacturing system for forming metal objects from metal powders (Fig 9, abstract, para [0031], " .. an additive manufacturing system for forming metal objects from metal powders .. "), the system comprising: a. a laser source (901) to provide a laser beam along a laser beam path (Fig 9, para [0078], "laser source 901"): b. a homogenizer (903) (Fig 9, para [0078], "a collimator/homogenizer 903"): c. a digital micro-mirror device (DMD) (905) (Fig 9, para [0078], "a DMD 905"); d. optics (905a, 907, 909, 911, 920) to configure the laser beam and direct the laser beam path to a target location (950a) comprising a device for holding a surface layer of a metal powder (Fig 9, para [0031], " .. the 2-D image pattern is delivered to the metal powder.", para
[0078], "mirror 905a ... lens 907 and lens 909, a mirror 911, and imaging lens 920 ... image tiles 950a .. .fusing the powder .. "); e. wherein the laser beam path optically associates the laser source (901) to the homogenizer (903), the homogenizer (903) to the DMD (905), the DMD (905) to the optics (905a, 907, 909, 911 920), and the optics to the target location (950a) (Fig 9, para [0031], [00781); f. whereby the laser beam is directed onto the DMD (905), wherein the DMD (905) is configured to create a 2-D final pattern that is reflected from the DMD (905) along the laser beam path to create a 2-D final image pattern on the surface (surface of tile 950a) (Fig 9, para [0031], " .. the 2-D image pattern is delivered to the metal powder.", para [0078); g. wherein the 2-D final pattern has a wavelength and a power density; whereby the 2-D final image pattern is configured to weld the metal powder (Fig 9, para [0022], " .. conduction mode welding .. ", para [0064], " .. wavelength ... -6 kW/cm2 power density on the powder bed ... melt and fuse the powder.."): h. wherein the homogenizer (903) is configured to shape and homogenize the laser beam into a tiled spot on the DMD; the tiled spot on the DMD defining an image having a pitch and a yaw (Fig 9, para [0064]. " .. A homogenizer is used to evenly distribute the laser energy across the DMD ... a 10 mmx5.5mm image is relayed .. ", para [0078], " .. image tiles 950a, 950b, 950c, 950d form a tiled image .. ", NOTE: a "pitch" and "yaw" are deemed implicit to the "10 mm x 5.5mm image").
Zediker does not teach wherein, the pitch and the yaw of the image is within 12 degrees of an illumination cone angle for the DMD. Voit which is from the same field of endeavor related to additive manufacturing using laser optics (abstract, para [0031) and teaches the aforementioned limitations, namely forming a pitch and a yaw (angle 143) of an image with 12 degrees of an illumination cone angle (179) (Fig 1F, 2A, 2B, para [065], " .. Angle 143 at which the IPU is offset may be determined by the size of the exposure area, the number of IPUs in the scanning direction and the desired overlap to achieve the desired image fidelity ... the angle may be a few degrees or a few tens of degrees ... angle 143 may be 13 degrees .. ", IPU=image processing unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to provide the pitch and the yaw of the image of Zediker within 12 degrees of an illumination cone angle for the DMD since this is within a range cited by Voit to achieve desired image fidelity and when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art finding an optimum or workable range is a matter of routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, Zediker in view of Voit teach the claimed invention as detailed above, in which Zediker teaches the image has dimensions defining image dimensions (Zediker, Fig 9, para [0064], " .. a 10 mm x 5.5mm image is relayed .. ").
Zediker does not teach the image dimensions and the DMD dimensions are the same.
Voit teaches aligning image processing unit (IPU) images with projected images (Fig 6A, para [079], " .. images projected by various IPUs may be configured to have a shape and orientation to align with a cross-sectional area 610 ... images 621-627 having a characteristic rectangular shape ... parallelogram images .. "). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to form the image dimensions of Zediker and the DMD dimensions to be the same to facilitate alignment of projected images, as suggested by VOIT (Fig 6A, para [079], " .. images projected by various IPUs may be configured to have a shape and orientation to align with a cross-sectional area 610 ... images 621-627 having a characteristic rectangular shape ... parallelogram images .. ").
Regarding claim 3, Zediker in view of Voit teaches the subject matter of claim 1 and 2, as described above, but Zediker fails to teach the pitch and yaw of the image are within about 5 degrees of the illumination cone angle for the DMD. Voit is also related to additive manufacturing using laser optics (abstract, para [0031) and teaches forming a pitch and a yaw (angle 143) of an image within 5 degrees of an illumination cone angle (179) (Fig 1 F, 2A, 2B, para [065], " .. Angle 143 at which the IPU is offset may be determined by the size of the exposure area, the number of IPUs in the scanning direction and the desired overlap to achieve the desired image fidelity ... the angle may be a few degrees .. ", IPU=image processing unit). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to provide the pitch and the yaw of the image of Zediker within 5 degrees of an illumination cone angle for the DMD since this is within a range cited by Voit to achieve desired image fidelity and when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art finding an optimum or workable range is a matter of routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, Zediker in view of Voit teach the claimed invention as detailed above, but Zediker fails to teach the pitch and yaw of the image are within about 1 degree of the illumination cone angle for the DMD. Voit is also related to additive manufacturing using laser optics (abstract, para (003]) and suggests forming a pitch and a yaw (angle 143) of an image within about 1 degree of an illumination cone angle (179) (Fig 1F, 2A, 2B, para (065], " .. Angle 143 at which the IPU is offset may be determined by the size of the exposure area, the number of IPUs in the scanning direction and the desired overlap to achieve the desired image fidelity ... the angle may be a few degrees .. ", IPU=image processing unit). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to provide the pitch and the yaw of the image of Zediker within about 1 degree of an illumination cone angle for the DMD since this is close to a range cited by Voit to achieve desired image fidelity and when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art finding an optimum or workable range is a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 5, Zediker teaches the spot is rectangular and the image is rectangular (Zediker, Fig 9, para [0064], " .. a 10 mm x 5.5mm image is relayed .. ", alternatively VOIT teaches the aforementioned limitation: Fig 6A, para [0078], " .. images projected by various IPUs may be configured to have a shape and orientation to align with a cross-sectional area 610 ... images 621-627 having a characteristic rectangular shape .. ", cl. 26).
With regard to claim 6, Zediker teaches in an alternative embodiment the DMD is configured to comprise an On-State mirror configuration and an Off-State mirror configuration for any given 2-D final image pattern; whereby in either the On-State mirror configuration or the Off-State mirror configuration, the DMD provides a heating laser beam along a heating laser beam path to create a heating image pattern on the surface (“When the laser is in the on state, the DMD 202 mirrors are tilted toward the incoming beam and redirect the beam normal to the DMD surface. When the laser is in the off state, the DMD 202 mirrors are tilted away from the incoming beam and redirect the incoming beam 48 degrees away from the incoming beam from the vector normal to the DMD surface. This is where the beam dump 204 is located because it has to intercept any beam energy that will be in an off state in the image.” (emphasis added), para. [0077]).
With regard to claim 7, Zediker teaches the laser beam has a total power, and a fraction of the total power is used to form the heating laser beam (“the mirror is toggled on and off very quickly, and the ratio of on time to off time determines the amount of fusion or bonding of the powder in the powder bed. This provides the capability to control laser power, and power density (e.g., kW/cm2), of the laser beam on the powder bed, without changing the power of the output beam from the laser source. In some embodiments more than 500 different powers and power densities, more than 700 different powers and power densities, and more than 100,000 different powers and power densities can be obtained.”, para. [0053]); whereby the system is configured to simultaneously provide both the 2-D final image pattern and the heating image pattern on the surface (“wherein the laser beam has a wave length select from the group consisting of blue and green; wherein the laser beam has a wave length selected from the group consisting of about 450 nm, about 460 nm, about 515 nm, about 532 and about 550 nm; wherein the laser source has a power of about 1 kW to about 20 kW; wherein and the 2-D image delivers a peak power density to the metal powder of from about 2 kW/cm2 to about 5 kW/cm2; wherein the DMD has maximum average power density level; and wherein the peak power density level of the 2-D image on the metal powder is at least 500× greater than the maximum average power density level of the DMD; wherein the DMD has maximum average power density level; and wherein the peak power density level of the 2-D image on the metal powder is at least 1,000× greater than the maximum average power density level of the DMD.”, para. [0032]).
With regard to claim 9, although Zediker teaches the invention as claimed, the citation does not teach the claimed diffusers. However, Voit teaches a diffuser on the heating laser beam path prior to the surface (“Lens assembly 129 may be configured to allow relative motion of lenses within assembly 129 resulting in control of light intensity over an irradiated area (e.g., the motion of lenses may allow focusing light within a region of an irradiated area or diffusing the light over the irradiated area).”, para. [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to include a diffuser on the heating laser beam path prior to the surface, as suggested and taught by Voit, for the purpose of providing a desired amount of energy to a laser operation.
With regard to claim 10, Zediker teaches the On-State provides the 2-D final image pattern (“The mirrors can be individually rotated, e.g., ±10-12°, or more or less, to an on or off state. In the on state, the laser from the laser source, e.g., the build laser and build laser beam, is reflected into the lens making the pixel direct the build laser energy into the image on the powder bed. In the off state, the laser beam, e.g., the build laser, is directed elsewhere, e.g., to a beam dump, making the pixel not contribute to the image or the fusing of the powder. It being understood that in embodiments the pre-heat laser beam many also be directed to and reflected from a DMD device to form a pre-heat image on the powder in the bed.”, para. [0052]).
With regard to claim 11, with regard to the limitation the Off-State provides the 2-D final image pattern, although Zediker does not teach this explicit limitation, it is submitted that such a limitation is not critical to the instant patent application as claim 10 explicitly teaches that the ON-State provides the 2-D final image pattern. Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to such that an Off-State provides the 2-D final image as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as routine optimization with the prior art as the limitation is not critical to the subject invention of the instant patent application.
With regard to claim 12, Zediker teaches the On-State provides the heating image pattern (“The mirrors can be individually rotated, e.g., ±10-12°, or more or less, to an on or off state. In the on state, the laser from the laser source, e.g., the build laser and build laser beam, is reflected into the lens making the pixel direct the build laser energy into the image on the powder bed. In the off state, the laser beam, e.g., the build laser, is directed elsewhere, e.g., to a beam dump, making the pixel not contribute to the image or the fusing of the powder. It being understood that in embodiments the pre-heat laser beam many also be directed to and reflected from a DMD device to form a pre-heat image on the powder in the bed.”, para. [0052])..
With regard to claim 13, with regard to the limitation of the Off-State provides the heating image pattern, although Zediker does not teach this explicit limitation, it is submitted that such a limitation is not critical to the instant patent application as claim 12 explicitly teaches that the ON-State provides the heating image pattern. Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to such that an Off-State provides the heating image as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as routine optimization with the prior art as the limitation is not critical to the subject invention of the instant patent application.
With regard to claim 14, Zediker teaches the homogenizer comprises a micro-lens homogenizer (“homogenized by either a light pipe, micro-lens homogenizer or a diffractive optical element;”, para. [0024]).
With regard to claim 15, Zediker teaches the homogenizer comprises a homogenizing optical fiber (“homogenized by either a light pipe, micro-lens homogenizer or a diffractive optical element;”, para. [0024]).
With regard to claim 16, Zediker teaches the homogenizer comprises a diffractive element (“homogenized by either a light pipe, micro-lens homogenizer or a diffractive optical element;”, para. [0024]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2020/0094478) in view of Voit et al. (US 2022/0088873) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Demuth et al. (WO 2017/132664).
With regard to claim 8, Zediker and Voit teach the invention as claimed as detailed above; however, the citations do not teach an attenuator on the heating laser beam path prior to the surface. However, Demuth from the same field of endeavor directed toward an additive manufacturing, spatial heat treating system teaches the aforementioned limitation(s): “However, the first radiant energy may correspond to an non-attenuated or less attenuated portion of that beam, while the second radiant energy may corresponding to an attenuated or more attenuated portion of that beam. In selected embodiments, such selective attenuation may be provided by a light value (e.g., an addressable light valve) that modulates fluence of the various pixels 602 of a print area 600 using partial polarization rotation, pulse width modulation (PWM), or the like as set forth hereinabove.”, para. [0093].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to include an attenuator on the heating laser beam path prior to the surface, as suggested and taught by Demuth, for the purpose of providing enhanced precision with a laser machining operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights