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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Labeling the figures of Fig. 1 as prior art has overcome the objection regarding labeling that which shows only prior art as prior art. Amendment to the specification has overcome the objection to Fig. 1 regarding reference figures absent from the specification. Applicant’s indication of how the disclosure as filed supports the reference characters of Fig. 1 through incorporating the disclosure of J. P. Kruth, L. Froyen, J. Van Vaerenbergh, P. Mercelis, M. Rombouts, B. Lauwers, Selective laser melting of iron-based powder, Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 149 (2004) 616-622. doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.11.051 is acknowledged and appreciated. Replacement Fig. 2B has overcome the objection to Fig. 2B for reference characters absent from the specification. Amendment has overcome the previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 112(b). The disclosure of “pre-calculated temperature or stress limit” in the paragraph starting line 7 of page 19, and the portion of the specification extending from page 23 line 17 to page 24 line 29 is sufficient to support “automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment” added to independent claim 11. Adding “automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment” has overcome the rejections of claim 11 and claims depending thereon under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended June 24, 2026 claims a dependence “on a relation of a peak temperature of the substrate after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum peak temperature criterion, and a relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum thermal stress criterion” (amendment markup maintained to show portions added by amendment). As worded, claim 1 refers to any relation of some peak temperature of the substrate after the exposing of the first portion and some maximum peak temperature criterion, and claim 1 refers to any relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum thermal stress criterion. The only relation of peak temperature and maximum peak temperature criterion apparently disclosed in the specification as filed and the several thousand documents incorporated by reference is whether or not substrate temperature exceeds a threshold temperature, and the only relation of thermal stress and maximum thermal stress criterion apparently disclosed in the disclosure as filed and the several thousand documents incorporated by reference appears to be whether or not thermal stress exceed some threshold thermal stress. The disclosure as filed, including the specification as filed and the documents incorporated by reference, is not sufficient to show that inventor or co-inventor was in possession of the invention which depends on any relation of a peak temperature of the substrate after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum peak temperature criterion, and any relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum thermal stress criterion, such as degree of change relative to a certain time or a direction of the thermal stress relative to some threshold value.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because they depend on claim 1.
Note that claims 18-20 are not rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
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) 1-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 20120308781) in view of Schoenung (WO2020263400A1) and Ploshikhin (US20210129226). Abe is cited on sheet 75 of the IDS filed January 12, 2025. Abe, Schoenung, and Ploshikhin are cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses a manufacturing method (Title, abstract, [0001]). Abe discloses that the method selectively heats portions of a surface of a substrate (base plate) with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate (scanning upper surface of the base plate with light beam [0078], [0091-92], Fig. 12). Abe discloses that directing the energy source causes heating [0091-92] and thermal stress in the defined portion ([0019], [0092-93], Figs. 12-13). Abe defines warping as deformation attributed to heat treatment [0014], thereby establishing that the stress of warping of paragraphs [0019], [0091-93] is a thermal stress.). Abe discloses exposing a first portion of the surface of the substrate (base plate) to the concentrated energy to cause the heating and the thermal stress proximate to the first portion ([0035], [0091], vector comprising point (a) in Fig. 12) and exposing a second portion of the surface of the substrate (base plate) adjacent to the first portion to the concentrated energy (vector comprising unlabeled point below point (a) in Fig. 12) to cause the heating and the thermal stress proximate to the second portion ([0019], [0035], [0091-93]). Abe discloses and shows that exposure to the concentrated energy occurs along a path (Fig. 12, [0035], [0074], [0091]), thereby disclosing that exposure of first portion does not occur at the same time as exposure of a second portion, thereby disclosing that exposure of the second portion sequentially occurs at some time after exposure of a first portion.
Abe discloses that the thermal stress causes substrate warping [0013-14], [0091-93], [0101-107], and Abe teaches warping as an effect to mitigate [0007], [0020]. Abe discloses adjusting energy parameter to achieve an intended degree of warping caused by heating, and Abe lists consolidated energy scan speed (a scanning rate of the light beam) as a parameter which may be adjusted [0079]. As Abe discloses adjusting scan speed to achieve an intended degree of thermal stress-induced warpage [0013-14], [0079], [0091-93], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the energy scanning speed in the process disclosed by Abe dependent on the thermal stress in the substrate, including portions of the substrate proximate to the first portion. As latency between heating adjacent portions depends on how quickly those portions are heated, adjusting scan speed depending on thermal stress, adjusts the latency between heating adjacent points depending on thermal stress.
Abe does not disclose that adjusting heating parameters has some dependency on a peak temperature.
Schoenung teaches a manufacturing method (Abstract, [0002]). Schoenung teaches that the method comprises selectively heating portions of material applied to a surface of a substrate with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the material applied to the surface of the substrate [0025], [0041]. Schoenung teaches that the energy causes heating and thermal stress in the defined portion [0063-64]. Schoenung teaches adjusting irradiation parameters in order to mitigate thermal stresses and warping dependent on peak temperature [0064]. Schoenung teaches energy beam scan speed as a parameter which may be adjusted [0064].
Both Abe and Schoenung teach manufacturing methods for selectively heating portions with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion, and both Abe and Schoenung teach mitigating warpage induced by thermal stress.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to set energy source parameters in the process disclosed by Abe, applied above dependent on some thermal stress in the substrate because both Abe [0079] and Schoenung [0064] teach adjusting irradiation parameters to control warping. As Schoenung teaches that such adjustments control a peak temperature [0064], one of ordinary skill in the art would expect such adjustment to limit the peak temperature. As both Abe [0079] and Schoenung [0064] teach scan speed as parameters, and the latency between moments at which portions are exposed depends on the scan speed, adjusting parameters in some way dependent on a maximum temperature and thermal stress results in a latency which to some extent depends on some maximum temperature among all possible maximum temperature which could meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of a maximum temperature criterion and maximum thermal stress among all possible thermal stresses which could meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of a maximum thermal stress criterion. Applicant is encouraged to consider whether or not there truly is a manipulative difference in the range of specific activity between a latency which has some unspecified dependence on some unspecified relation of a peak temperature of the substrate after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum peak temperature criterion, and on some unspecified relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum thermal stress criterion parameters, and adjusting energy beam parameters wherein a latency between exposing different portions depends on the peak temperature which causes a thermal stress as taught by Schoenung [0064], particularly considering that claim 1 encompasses any maximum peak temperature and thermal stress. For example, a SiO2 substrate reaches a peak temperature of at or below
1,000
°
C in powder bed fusion. If the dependence were whether or not a process exceeded a maximum temperature of
2,500
°
C and associated thermal stress, the process would manipulate the same series of steps as a process which does not adjust latency between exposing portions. Please specify what the maximum peak temperature and maximum thermal stress criteria are so that the claims could define over process which do not exceed some temperature and thermal stress criteria among all possible temperature and thermal stress criteria.
Abe is silent as to whether or not cooling occurs in the latency between ceasing exposure of the first portion and exposure of the second portion.
Ploshikhin teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of a material on the surface of a build platform with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate, to cause heating in the defined portion (title, abstract, [0002], [0004], [0011-12], [0074]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a first portion to the concentrated energy (Segment S1 Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-145]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a second portion adjacent to the first portion to the concentrated energy (Segment S3 Fig. 9, 10(c) [0012], [0074], [0144], [0147]). Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that controlling the exposing sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80]. Ploshikhin teaches times in which the heat source is no longer acting at a particular point are times wherein that portion is purely cooling down [0115].
Both Ploshikhin and Abe in view of Schoenung teach adjusting manufacturing parameters to control heat effects, including component warping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing that the cessation of heating resulting from scanning different portions at different moments, disclosed and shown by Abe ([0035], [0074], [0091], Fig. 12) to some extent causes cooling because Ploshikhin teaches that the times wherein a portion is no longer exposed to an energy source are times in which that same portion is cooled [0115] is a method comprising selectively heating portions of a material on the surface of a build platform with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate, to cause heating in the defined portion (title, abstract, [0002], [0004], [0011-12], [0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Abe in view of Schoenung does not disclose exposing a portion which is not adjacent to the first and second portions to the concentrate energy in the latency between exposing the adjacent first and second portions.
Ploshikhin teaches exposing a first portion to the concentrated energy (Segment S1 Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-145]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a second portion adjacent to the first portion to the concentrated energy (Segment S3 Fig. 9, 10(c) [0012], [0074], [0144], [0147]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a third portion in the latency between exposing the first portion and exposing the second portion (segment S2 Figs. 9, 10(b), [0012], [0074], [0144], [0146]). Ploshikhin shows that the third portion (segment S2) is not adjacent to the first portion (segment S1) and is not adjacent to the second portion (Segment S3) and that the first portion (segment S1) is adjacent to the second portion (segment S3) (Figs. 9, 10(a-c)). Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that the irradiation sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80].
Both Ploshikhin and Abe in view of Schoenung teach adjusting manufacturing parameters to control heat effects, including component warping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to expose a third portion, which is not adjacent to either the first or the second portion, to the concentrated energy, in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung, applied above during a latency between exposing adjacent first and second points to the concentrated energy because Ploshikhin teaches segmentation in a process which exposes a non-adjacent segment in a latency between exposing adjacent segments in a sequence of exposing portions (Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0144-148]) which results in at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion, and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80]. Abe in view of Schoenung does not disclose a preference for concentrated energy scanning sequence, and both Abe [0079], and Schoenung [0064] teach setting parameters in order to control thermal effects, including warping. Abe [0091-93] and Schoenung [0064] teach that such exposure causes heating and thermal stress proximate to the portion heated.
Regarding claim 3, Ploshikhin teaches selecting segment positions in order to maintain a constant temperature gradient (steady state) throughout the component [0017], [0072], [0129-135]; therefore, Ploshikhin teaches selecting spatial relation of segments dependent on temperature change between segments. In order to achieve the effects of segmentation taught by Ploshikhin [0016], [0075-80], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine spatial relationships of segments in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung and Ploshikhin dependent on temperature change. As Schoenung teaches [0064], and Ploshikhin suggest [0075-80] that temperature change and thermal stress are interdependent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that determining spatial relation of segments dependent on temperature change also determines spatial relationship of segments depending on thermal stress.
Regarding claim 4, Abe discloses that concentrated energy moves on a path ([0074], Fig. 12), thereby disclosing repositioning the concentrated energy over the course of the process. As claim 1 claims “a latency between heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion is selectively dependent on a relation of a peak temperature of the substrate after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum peak temperature criterion, and a relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum thermal stress criterion” and claim 2 claims “during the latency, a third portion of the surface of the substrate which is not adjacent to the first portion and is not adjacent to the second portion is exposed to the concentrated energy”, claim 1 already requires some threshold temperature (the peak temperature) and thermal stress (the thermal stress proximate to the first component) limit the latency during which the third portion is exposed, and Abe in view of Schoenung meets the threshold limitations for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Abe discloses an embodiment, wherein the concentrated energy both causes thermal stress induced warpage in the substrate and solidifies by melting or sintering powder feed material [0014], [0016-19], [0093-95], thereby disclosing some phase transition in the powder material at the defined portion.
Regarding claim 6, Abe discloses an embodiment, wherein the concentrated energy both causes thermal stress induced warpage in the substrate and solidifies by melting or sintering powder material deposited as a layer prior to exposure with the energy beam ([0014], [0016-19], [0093-95], Figs. 1, 13), thereby disclosing depositing a layer on a substrate before exposing the first portion.
Regarding claim 7, Abe discloses melting or sintering the deposited powder material with the consolidated energy [0016], [0094-95], thereby disclosing that the deposited layer comprises a meltable or sinterable powder, and the concentrated energy causes melting or sintering of the powder.
Regarding claim 8, Abe discloses that the energy source comprises a laser [0024], [0040], [0092].
Regarding claim 10, Schoenung discloses that all parameters are determined by and controlled by software [0026], thereby teaching that the adjusting of the energy parameters in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung, as applied to claim 1 above, is to some extent determined by automatic control. Schoenung teaches that adjusting consolidated energy parameters control the material properties of the feed material [0033]; therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust energy parameters in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung depending on the properties of supplied material. As discussed with respect to claim 1, adjustment of the energy scan speed is determined to avoid thermal stress and is interdependent with temperature setting, controlling energy parameters by automated control depending on material properties determines and to some extent calculates the peak temperature, and the thermal stress in the substrate. As the substrate is necessarily a supplied material, in controlling energy properties depending on supplied material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control depending on properties of the substrate to some extent.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US20120308781) in view of Schoenung (WO2020263400A1) and Ploshikhin (US20210129226) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schiffres (US20200049415). Schiffres is cited on sheet 153 of the IDS filed January 12, 2025.
Regarding claim 9, Abe in view of Schoenung and Ploshikhin does not disclose that the substrate comprises an integrated circuit.
Schiffres teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of material applied to a surface of a substrate with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on defined portions [0022-24]. Schiffres teaches that the energy causes heating and thermal stress [0030], [0042], [0068]. Schiffres teaches exposing a portion of material applied to the surface of the substrate to the concentrated energy to cause the heating and the thermal stress proximate to the portion [0042], [0068], [0075], [0077], [0080]. Schiffres teaches that energy parameters depend on a thermal stress proximate to the portion (interfacial bond failure stress limit [0068]) and that scan speed affects temperature attained [0197], [0217]. Schiffres teaches that the substrate is an integrated circuit [0060], [0077], [0081].
Both Schiffres and Abe in view of Schoenung and Ploshikhin teach similar manufacturing methods.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung and Ploshikhin, applied above to a process of manufacturing an object, wherein a substrate thereof is an integrated circuit because Schiffres teaches such a substrate as an appropriate application for a similar process [0022-24], [0060], [0070], [0077], [0081]. Abe [0091-94], Schoenung [0064], and Schiffres [0068] all consider effects of thermal stress on limiting process conditions, and Abe is broadly open to producing “various kinds of objects” [0124]; therefore, in view of Schiffres [0022-24], [0067-70], [0070], [0081], one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung and Ploshikhin may be successfully applied to manufacturing an object wherein the object is manufactured with an integrated circuit as a substrate.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US20120308781) in view of Ploshikhin (US20210129226).
Regarding claim 18, Abe discloses a manufacturing method (Title, abstract, [0001]). Abe discloses that the method selectively heats portions of a surface of a substrate (base plate) with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate (scanning upper surface of the base plate with light beam [0078], [0091-92], Fig. 12). Abe shows and discloses exposing a first vector to concentrated energy source (Fig. 12, [0074], [0091]) to cause localized heating, residual stress, and a first phase transition on the substrate [0091-94]. Geometrically, a scan vector is a series of adjacent positions. Abe shows exposing subsequent vectors, at least two of which would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of a second and third scan vectors, to the energy source (Fig. 12) to cause localized heating, residual stress, and the phase transition [0091-94], any of which would introduce localized heating, thermal stress and phase transition.
Abe discloses that the thermal stress causes substrate warping [0013-14], [0091-93], [0101-107], and Abe teaches warping as an effect to mitigate [0007], [0020]. Abe discloses adjusting energy parameter to achieve an intended degree of warping caused by heating, and Abe lists consolidated energy scan speed (a scanning rate of the light beam) as a parameter which may be adjusted [0079]. As Abe discloses adjusting scan speed to achieve an intended degree of residual thermal stress-induced warpage [0013-14], [0079], [0091-93], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the energy scanning speed in the process disclosed by Abe dependent on the thermal stress in the substrate, including portions of the substrate proximate to the first portion. As latency between heating portions depends on how quickly those portions are heated, adjusting scan speed depending on thermal stress, adjusts the latency between heating positions depending on thermal stress.
Further, considering Abe discloses setting parameters to attain a degree of stress induced warping [0079], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to set energy parameters disclosed by Abe not to exceed some a threshold amount of stress in order to ensure the process attains the intended degree of thermal stress and warpage disclosed by Abe [0079]. Abe discloses that stress accumulates ([0092], [0094], Fig. 14), and Abe discloses that heating introduces stress [0092-94]; therefore, in adjusting parameters not to exceed some a threshold amount of stress, each step which introduces stress in each portion disclosed by Abe to some extent approaches but does not exceed some overall threshold value.
Abe does not disclose the sequence of exposing a first series of adjacent positions in a first region, a second series of adjacent positions in a second region subsequent to exposing the first series of adjacent positions, and exposing a third series of adjacent positions in the first region subsequent to exposing the second series of adjacent positions.
Abe does not disclose the sequence of exposing a first series of adjacent positions in a first defined portion, a second series of adjacent positions in a second defined portion subsequent to exposing the first series of adjacent positions, and exposing a third series of adjacent positions in the first defined portion subsequent to exposing the second series of adjacent positions.
Ploshikhin teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of a material on the surface of a build platform with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate, to cause heating in the defined portion (title, abstract, [0002], [0004], [0011-12], [0074]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a first portion comprising a first series of adjacent positions to the concentrated energy (Segment S1 Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-145]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a second portion comprising a second series of adjacent positions subsequent to exposing the first portion and exposing the second portion (segment S2 Figs. 9, 10(b), [0012], [0074], [0144], [0146]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a third portion comprising a third series of adjacent positions, the third portion adjacent to the first portion, to the concentrated energy (Segment S3 Fig. 9, 10(c) [0012], [0074], [0144], [0147]). Ploshikhin shows that the second portion (segment S2) is not adjacent to the first portion (segment S1) and is not adjacent to the third portion (Segment S3), and Ploshikhin teaches that the first portion (segment S1) is adjacent to the third portion (segment S3) (Figs. 9, 10(a-c)); therefore, Ploshikhin teaches that the first and third portion define some common first defined portion by virtue of adjacency, and that the second portion defines some second defined portion by virtue of non-adjacency. As the segments comprising series of positions are in different respective positions (Figs. 9, 10), the energy source exposed on each position taught by Ploshikhin must necessarily be repositioned in sequentially exposing segments. Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that simulating with a constant thermal gradient is useful for planning scan sequence [0125-129]. Ploshikhin teaches planning sequence and timing by simulation [0012], [0053]. Ploshikhin teaches that the irradiation sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80].
Both Ploshikhin and Abe teach adjusting manufacturing parameters to control heat effects, including component warping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to perform the process disclosed by Abe, applied above, according to a sequence comprising exposing a first series of adjacent positions in a first region, exposing a second series of adjacent positions in a second region subsequent to exposing the first series of positions, and exposing a third series of adjacent positions in the first region subsequent to exposing the second series of adjacent positions, because Ploshikhin teaches segmentation in a process which exposes a non-adjacent segment in a latency between exposing adjacent segments in a sequence of exposing portions (Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0144-148]) which results in at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion, and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80]. Abe does not disclose a preference for concentrated energy scanning sequence, and Abe teaches setting parameters in order to control thermal effects, including warping [0079]. Abe teaches that such exposure causes heating and thermal stress proximate to the portion heated [0091-93]. Considering Ploshikhin teaches temperature equalization within the component and minimizing the risk of overheating as a favorable outcome planning the additive manufacturing sequence [0075-78], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to adjust process parameters in the method disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin to avoid reaching some peak temperature. Adjusting process parameters to avoid reaching some peak temperature invokes a dependency of exposure latency on that peak temperature and establishes a heating condition wherein temperature of heating each series of adjacent positions approaches but does not exceed the peak temperature.
Ploshikhin teaches that regions cool when not exposed to the concentrated energy [0115-116]; therefore, at the moment of exposing the second series of adjacent positions of the second portion subsequent to exposing the first series of adjacent positions of the first portion, the second series of adjacent positions is sufficiently distant from the first region such that the first region cools to some extent while the second region is being heated.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US20120308781) in view of Ploshikhin (US20210129226) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Nardi (US20140277669). Nardi is cited on sheet 84 of the IDS filed January 12, 2025.
Regarding claim 19, Abe discloses planning irradiation data, thereby determining at least some aspect of a latency between irradiation exposure, in advance of performing the process [0074]. Planning data is adaptive in response to the conditions which are planned. Abe discloses setting energy parameters in order to attain an intended degree of stress induced warping [0079]. Considering Abe discloses setting parameters to attain a degree of stress induced warping [0079], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that obtaining the scan data and planning the process disclosed by Abe [0074] comprises some degree of consideration of a maximum stress to ensure the process attains the intended degree of thermal stress and warpage disclosed by Abe [0079].
Abe does not disclose that planning the sequence and timing of the process assuring that defined steps do not exceed a maximum thermal gradient. Ploshikhin teaches sequences of exposure comprising exposing both proximate and distant segments (Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-150]). Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that simulating with a constant thermal gradient is useful for planning scan sequence [0125-129]. Ploshikhin teaches planning sequence and timing by simulation [0012], [0053]. Ploshikhin teaches that the irradiation sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80].
Both Abe and Ploshikhin teach similar manufacturing processes comprising adjusting parameters to control thermal effects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to plan the scanning sequence and timing of the process disclosed by Abe by simulating conditions based on a thermal gradient threshold criterion because Ploshikhin teaches favorable control of thermal effects resulting from simulating a sequence that assures intended thermal gradients in such additive manufacturing processes [0012], [0016], [0053], [0075-80], [0120], [0125-129].
Abe in view of Ploshikhin does not disclose planning with Multiphysics simulations.
Nardi teaches planning in a material processing, additive manufacturing method (Title, abstract, [0004]). In one embodiment Nardi teaches inputting manufacturing requirements as constraints for determining optimized manufacturing geometry [0065]. Nardi teaches thermal gradient as a constraint which may be simulated to plan design [0065]. Nardi obtains values of the manufacturing constraints with Multiphysics simulations [0063-65]. Nardi teaches maximum temperature an object attains as a constraint which Multiphysics simulations can model [0064].
Both Nardi and Abe in view of Ploshikhin teach planning for performing an additive manufacturing process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to plan irradiation parameters of the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin, applied above with some Multiphysics simulation because Nardi teaches Multiphysics simulations as effective for modeling physical manufacturing constraints in considerations for planning additive manufacturing processes [0063-65]. Considering Ploshikhin teaches temperature equalization within the component and minimizing the risk of overheating as a favorable outcome planning the additive manufacturing sequence [0075-78], Abe discloses thermal stress as the cause of warpage [0013], [0019] [0077], [0092-93], and Nardi provides maximum temperature attained by an object as a constraint which Multiphysics simulations can model [0063-65], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to plan with the Multiphysics simulation as disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi to assure some threshold temperature is not reached.
Regarding claim 20, Abe shows that scan path overlaps to some extent (Fig. 12). Abe discloses planning scan path [0074] and adjusting energy scan speed [0079]. Ploshikhin teaches that a repositioning of the heating between successive segments incurs a distance-related latency [0053], [0166], and Ploshikhin teaches that embodiments of planning the sequence reduces time between irradiating segments [0021], [0031]. Ploshikhin further teaches that treatment of adjacent segments may comprise an additional merging exposure step (Fig. 15, [0157]). Nardi further teaches additive manufacturing build rate as a constraint which may factor into the sequence planning [0051], and optimizing parameters based on cost as a constraint ([0044], [0059], claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define a cost function based on system parameters because Nardi discloses cost as a constraint in an additive manufacturing optimization planning [0044], [0059], and Nardi teaches cost advantages as a reason why additive manufacturing
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art plan the sequence and timing in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi, to minimize a material processing duration because Ploshikhin teaches that sequence planning may shorten the duration between intervals [0021], [0031], [0050], and Nardi teaches that the low cost of additive manufacturing is a feature appreciated by one of skill in the art [0051]. As Ploshikhin teaches that adjacent segment overlap may comprise additional steps ([0157], Fig. 15); Ploshikhin teaches that a repositioning of the heating between successive segments incurs a distance-related latency [0053], [0166], and Ploshikhin teaches that embodiments of planning the sequence reduces time between irradiating segments [0021], [0031], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to factor repositioning time and manipulative steps at overlapping, adjacent position into the determination of the cost function. In order to obtain any benefit from the cost function, it would be necessary to employ the cost function. As the function optimizes operating parameters, as taught by Nardi [0051] employing the cost function would predictably optimize the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi, which as applied to claim 18 comprises sequences of the exposing and the repositioning.
Nardi teaches that due to the complexities of additive manufacturing processes, it may be necessary to obtain real constraints for the optimization by experimentation as opposed to predetermining the constraints [0064]. Considering the complexity of the additive manufacturing process disclosed by Abe, in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi, applied above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to calculating the cost function during manipulation of the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi which comprises exposing the first series.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The several large passages which quote large portions of the previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 103 in and of themselves are not persuasive because quoted passages do not explain how presently entered claims define over the prior art. Applicant’s substantive arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 begin on page 23 of applicant’s reply.
Arguments that modifying Abe (US20120308781) to minimize thermal stress amounts to a teaching away from Abe are not persuasive because the Abe reference itself adjusts parameters to control thermal stress [0079]. The combination of Abe in view of Schoenung (WO2020263400A1) and Ploshikhin (US20210129226), applied above sets energy source parameters in the process disclosed by Abe dependent on some thermal stress in the substrate. The combination does not minimize that thermal stress. Further the actual combination of Abe in view of secondary references controls thermal stress not to Both Schoenung [0064] and Ploshikhin [0078] teach that the process introduces thermal stress; therefore, the combination does not appear to minimize thermal stress.
Applicant’s arguments that Abe introduces thermal stresses which exceed “acceptable residual thermal stress” is not persuasive in showing that claim 1 defines over Abe because claim 1 is open to some maximum thermal stress criterion which dramatically exceed some acceptable amount of residual thermal stress. For example, claim 1 is open to a tensile strength of the material as a thermal stress criterion, which would exceed any degree of thermal stress which does not cause failure would not exceed this criterion. The disclosure as filed does not exclude a thermal stress criterion beyond that which would cause warping from the inventive thermal stress criterion.
Arguments that Ploshikhin does not teach or suggest processing dependent on calculated residual thermal stress are not persuasive in overcoming the standing rejections because neither claim 1 nor claim 18 claims processing dependent on calculated residual thermal stress. Claim 1 claims that a latency between heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion is selectively dependent on a relation of a peak temperature of the substrate after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum peak temperature criterion, and a relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum thermal stress criterion, which only invokes some dependency on some relation of a thermal stress and some unspecified maximum thermal stress criterion. Independent claim 18, claims a latency between first localized heating of the first series of adjacent positions in the first region and the third localized heating of the third series of adjacent positions in the first region, is selectively dependent on a peak temperature of the substrate in the first region defined portion after the first localized heating, and the first residual thermal stress in the first region. The dependencies in claims 1 and 18 do not require manipulating a step of calculating thermal stress, rather they claim that processing is in some way dependent on a thermal stress which is not necessarily equal to a calculated value of thermal stress. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2145(VI).
Arguments that Abe and Schoenung are not combinable/are mutually exclusive are not persuasive because Abe is open to adjusting parameters [0079], and Abe discloses further warping in the laser sintering process after treating the substrate does not occur [0089]. The Abe reference is therefore open to a process which controls thermal stress in substrate preparation and continues to monitor thermal stress in build production steps. Applicant’s arguments further note that Schoenung controls thermal stress to avoid cracking. Abe discloses machining and actively applying the base plate after deliberately introducing thermal stress [0015], [0089], thereby disclosing that the applied thermal stress did not result in the severe material defects which Schoenung teaches avoiding [0064]. Treating the teachings of Abe and Schoenung as mutually exclusive would eschew the synergistic results which flow from the combination.
Applicant is also reminded of what the rejection and the claims actually say. Present claim 1 certainly does not require minimizing residual thermal stress. Abe does not require minimizing thermal stress. The rejection statement combining Schoenung with Abe is “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to set energy source parameters in the process disclosed by Abe, applied above dependent on some thermal stress in the substrate because both Abe [0079] and Schoenung [0064] teach adjusting irradiation parameters to control warping. As Schoenung teaches that such adjustments control a peak temperature [0064], one of ordinary skill in the art would expect such adjustment to limit the peak temperature.” Applicant’s arguments are the only statements which suggest that thermal stress should be minimized. If applicant intends to require the invention minimize thermal stress, applicant should claim minimizing thermal stress, provided such limitation is supported by the disclosure as filed.
Arguments that applying the teachings of Schoenung would destroy the Abe disclosure because the resulting base plate would not warp are not persuasive because the actual teachings from Schoenung applied are the teachings that: Schoenung teaches that the energy causes heating and thermal stress in the defined portion [0063-64]; Schoenung teaches adjusting irradiation parameters in order to mitigate thermal stresses and warping dependent on peak temperature [0064], and Schoenung teaches energy beam scan speed as a parameter which may be adjusted [0064]. Schoenung’s teachings are sufficient to show adjusting parameters can control thermal stress and warpage, which is how Schoenung was applied to Abe. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145(III). Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP2145(X)(A).
With the argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
323
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
on page 28 of applicant’s reply, applicant appears construe claim 1 to a narrower interpretation than what is actually claimed. Claiming some dependence of a latency on some unspecified relation of peak temperature and an unspecified maximum temperature criterion [not necessarily a maximum temperature] and on a relation some unspecified relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion and an unspecified maximum thermal stress criterion [not necessarily a maximum thermal stress] is not sufficiently specific to limit the claimed method requiring operating state remain below some [still unspecified] maximum values of temperature and thermal stress. Further, even if the claims were so limited a maximum thermal stress criterion is not necessarily the amount of thermal stress to cause warpage. For example, a maximum thermal stress criterion could be a value of the stress required to cause thermal shock failure, which is a significantly larger value than the thermal stress to cause minimal warping. Even further, the examples in the present disclosure have <6 µm warpage (Figs. 6A-F, paragraph on page 38 lines 8-20 of the present specification); therefore, it appears unlikely that present claim 1 is limited to maintaining a thermal stress below that which causes any degree of warpage.
Arguments that the claimed cessation is distinguished from scan speed are not persuasive because Abe shows that only a point is exposed at a given time (Fig. 12) and that the energy source moves along a path ([0074], [0091], Fig. 12). When a point of exposure moves from a first position to a second position, that point no longer exposes on that first position; therefore, exposure ceases at that first position.
Applicant’s arguments state that scan speed dictates the velocity of an energy source along a continuous vector. A vector is defined by both a magnitude and a direction; therefore, when a path changes direction, the path traverses a different vector. Abe shows that the scan path comprises several vectors (Fig. 12). If the velocity of an energy source along a vector were to change, the amount of time the energy source traverses that vector changes. Changing the amount of time between heating a first portion and heating of a second portion.
Claim 1 as worded claims “a latency between heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion” claim 1 does not claim a latency between completion of heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion as argued by applicant. The more slowly a first vector is exposed, the more time elapses between exposing a first portion and exposing an adjacent portion. If applicant intends to limit the claimed latency to a latency between completion of heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion, applicant should claim such limitation. Though such a limitation would likely define over the combination of the prior art as presently applied to claim 1, the limitation likely will not define over a combination of Abe, Schoenung and Ploshikhin which incorporates the irradiation pattern taught by Ploshikhin (Figs. 9, 10, [0144-148]). Applicant is encouraged to read MPEP 2111.01(I) and (II) for further discussions as to why the present rejection maintains that claims, as worded, are obvious over the prior art.
Arguments that the claims define over Abe in view of Schoenung and Ploshikhin because Ploshikhin does not teach “a latency between heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion is selectively dependent on a peak temperature of the substrate, and a thermal stress proximate to the first portion” largely is not persuasive because this limitation is not claimed. Claim 1 claims “a latency between heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion is selectively dependent on a relation of a peak temperature of the substrate after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum peak temperature criterion, and a relation of a thermal stress proximate to the first portion after the exposing of the first portion and a maximum thermal stress criterion”, which is significantly broader than the limitation argued by applicant considering the relations and criteria are not specified. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection relies on Abe and Schoenung to render obvious controlling parameters to some extent dependent on some relations with thermal stress and peak temperature. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Arguments that the combination of reference do not teach dynamically determining the spatial relation of segments based on a temperature change during heating is not persuasive because claim 3 does not require such dynamic determination. Claim 3 claims manufacturing method according to claim 2, wherein a spatial relation of the third portion to the first portion is dependent on at least a temperature change of the first portion during the heating of the third portion, and a thermal stress on the substrate, which can be met by a simulated temperature change prior to manufacturing. If applicant intends to limit claim 3 to dynamic determination, applicant should claim dynamic determination. Ploshikhin teaches selecting segment positions in order to maintain a constant temperature gradient (steady state) throughout the component [0017], [0072], [0129-135]. This teaching by Ploshikhin does determine spatial relations of segments to some extent based on some temperature change.
The argument particularly is not persuasive when applied to claim 4 because claim 1 already appears intended to limit the peak temperature and thermal stress in the first portion to a maximum temperature criterion and maximum thermal stress criterion, and if these criteria are a threshold temperature and threshold thermal stress respectively such limitation would meet claim 4.
Arguments that the teachings of Ploshikhin are incompatible with Abe’s disclosure are not persuasive because Abe is open to adjusting parameters [0079], and Abe discloses that further warping does not occur during building [0089]. Further, even in the process taught by Ploshikhin, heat still accumulates at manufactured part boundaries [0141], which Ploshikhin teaches causes warping (deformation) [0010], [0168]; therefore, at least some degree of warping will be expected from the sequence taught by Ploshikhin, applied above.
Applicant argues for claim 9 over the prior art by reference to claim 1. This argument is not persuasive for the reason(s) given above with respect to claim 1.
Arguments that claim 18 is directed to an automated controller are not persuasive because claim 18 is directed to a manufacturing method. Examiner previously required restriction between manufacturing methods and an automated controller, and this requirement remains in effect.
Applicant argues rejection of independent claim 18 by reference to arguments regarding claims 2-4 and by repeating arguments for claims 2-4. These arguments by reference and repetition are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to Ploshikhin.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 19 and 20 are not persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Neither claim 19 nor claim 20 recites the controller which applicant argues. Further adaptively determining the latency and planning a sequence and timing of the concentrated energy during the exposing the first series, as recited in claim 19 is open to determining the latency and planning a sequence and timing of the concentrated energy during the exposing the first series adaptive to a previously run simulation or adaptive to properties of specific feed material, or adaptive to the specific article manufactured (note the “during” phrase as claimed modifies the concentrated energy, not the determining). With respect to claim 20, considering Nardi teaches real, experimentally determined constraints when processes may be too complicated for constraints to be determined entirely numerically [0064], in view of the complexity of the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi (US20140277669), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to calculate the cost function disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi during manipulation of the process.
It is noted that some of applicant’s remarks appear to suggest that explicit claim language is different from the claims that are actually entered. In future responses please verify that arguments are directed to claims as entered.
Applicant’s comments regarding independent method claim 11 have been considered. Applicant’s arguments contain statement that could be construed to limit claim 11 to process which consider both scenarios whereas, MPEP 2111.04(II) affords the claims a significantly broader interpretation. See the paragraph beginning “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Claim 11 is met by a process wherein the temperature or thermal stress would never exceed some threshold as a result of the heating of the respective segment and a spatially proximate segment is always selected as the next successive segment because such a reference would always meet the claimed result of not exceeding the claimed threshold contingencies. Claim 11 defines over Abe at least for the automatically determining limitation added by amended, not for the reasons argued with respect to the claimed contingent limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 11 claims a material processing manufacturing method. Claim 11 claims defining a series of segments for treatment, each segment representing a region to be selectively heated to process a layer on a surface of a substrate. Any member of a series of segments other than the first segment, necessarily has at least one prior segment, and any member in a series of segments other than the final segment necessarily has a successive segment/next successive segment. Claim 11 claims automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment and automatically checking each successive segment to control a thermal overlap with prior heated segments. The automatically determining and checking steps are claimed as constituent steps of the manufacturing method, not as substeps of the defining step; thermal stress and thermal overlap are physical effects; therefore, claim 11 is directed to more than just determining and extra-solution activity. Claim 11 claims if a temperature or thermal stress would exceed a threshold as a result of the heating of the respective segment, a spatially distant segment is selected as the next successive segment of the series of segments, and if the temperature or thermal stress would not exceed the threshold [that same threshold recited earlier in claim 11] as a result of the heating of the respective segment, a spatially proximate segment is selected as the next successive segment of the series of segments. As a given successive segment in claim 11 is either proximate or distant, claim 11 sets forth clear bounds on what is not considered “distant” within the scope of the claim.
Prior office action(s) relied on Abe (US 20120308781) to render obvious claim 11 as previously presented. Abe is the closest prior art reference of record to claim 11 as presently entered. Abe discloses and shows that thermal stresses yield results on a substrate [0091-94], and Abe defines a scan path according to a series of vectors (Fig. 12), but Abe does not disclose or suggest calculating thermal stress of an individual segment within a layer. Claim 11 defines over Abe at least in claiming defining a series of segments for treatment, each segment representing a region to be selectively heated to process a layer [emphasis added] on a surface of a substrate and automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment.
The present office action combines Abe with Schoenung (WO2020263400A1), Ploshikhin (US20210129226), Schiffres (US20200049415) and/or Nardi (US20140277669) to render obvious claims 1-10 and 18-20. None of Schoenung, Ploshikhin, Schiffres and/or Nardi discloses calculating thermal stress of individual segments within a layer. Claim 11 defines over Abe in view of Schoenung, Ploshikhin, Schiffres and/or Nardi at least in claiming defining a series of segments for treatment, each segment representing a region to be selectively heated to process a layer on a surface of a substrate and automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment.
US20230036241, effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application, discloses calculating thermal stress in an additive manufacturing process [0062], [0065]. US20230036241 does not disclose automatically calculating thermal stress for segments within a layer. Claim 11 defines over US20230036241 at least in claiming defining a series of segments for treatment, each segment representing a region to be selectively heated to process a layer on a surface of a substrate and automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment.
US20220163943, effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application, discloses calculating thermal stress within each layer of an additive manufacturing process [0037] but not individual thermal stress for each segment of a series of segments within a layer. Claim 11 defines over US20220163943 at least in claiming defining a series of segments for treatment, each segment representing a region to be selectively heated to process a layer on a surface of a substrate and automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment.
CN111057919A, US20160321384, and CN112517924A each discloses calculating a thermal stress distribution in an additive manufacturing process, but none of the references discloses calculating thermal stress of individual segments within a layer. Claim 11 defines over CN111057919A, US20160321384, and/or CN112517924A at least in claiming defining a series of segments for treatment, each segment representing a region to be selectively heated to process a layer on a surface of a substrate and automatically determining a thermal stress of each successive segment.
Claims 12-17 depend on claim 11. Dependent claims define over the prior art at least for the reasons given above with respect to claim 11.
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 SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights