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
Claims 1-2, 4-18, 20 are original.
Claim 3 is currently amended.
Claims 19 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argues regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 anticipation in view of Ng that the “selectively varying the amount of energy as a function of position along the scan path to at least one of…” is not disclosed by Ng. Remarks pp. 11.
This is not found persuasive because Applicant indicates that they agree with several of the positions Examiner took regarding the amount of energy varying the amount of energy but, alternatively, takes another / different position that such varying is NOT along the scan path. This argument is clearly defunct and not the case based on a close reading of Ng.
Ng teaches that the energy beam (see 402 of [0048]) traverses the surface of the outermost layer (408, [0047]) of the traversal direction (404 of [0048], Fig. 4B), and this is sufficient to meet the claimed, recited subject matter wherein the beam consolidates the material track such as to cause fusion / curing / sintering based on selective variations in the amount of energy as a function of position. Since the temperature density of the trailing portion (424 of [0049]) is different than that of the leading portion (426, Id.), the claimed subject matter regarding the final wherein clause is met because (i) only a single limitation of the Markush group need be disclosed by the cited prior art to render the claimed, recited subject matter anticipated; (ii) Ng [0031] discloses selectively varying an input power of the amount of energy because it refers to the adjustment of an intensity of the energy beam (104) using a mirror in conjunction with a control system (200 of Fig. 2) to alter the properties of the energy beam (104) with the fusing system (102, Id.).
Furthermore, Applicant appears to be arguing a limitation of claim 2, that is also anticipated by Ng, as though it is present in independent claim 1 when it is not. In other words, Applicant’s argument on the bottom of pp. 11 and onto pp. 12 are related to the intensity profile are related to direction and / or velocity alterations, or the input power of the amount of energy, which were disclosed only regarding the rejection of claim 2. Claim 1 merely requires a selective varying (which can include not varying at all – thus the variations are a type of contingent limitation where no variations causing increased uniformity of the consolidated material track and / or layer is sufficient to meet the claim) of the amount of energy as a function of position along the scan path to at least one of (Markush group alternatives follow):
Increase a uniformity (curing increases the uniformity of the deposited powder material that makes up the consolidated material track) as a function of position along a length of the scan path;
Increase a uniformity of a consolidated material layer that is partially defined by the consolidated material track (the scan path includes a consolidated material track which makes up a consolidated material layer – therefore, partial consolidation of one necessarily consolidates a portion of the other).
In addition, Examiner notes that the claim is sufficiently broad such that the BRI of the claimed, recited subject matter can include wherein the phrase selectively varying the amount of energy is broad enough such as to encompass “on” and “off” (or anywhere in between) power functionalities as a function of position along the scan path, and because consolidation of the material (i.e. sintering, polymerization, etc.) are interpreted as increasing the uniformity of the consolidated material track and layer along a length of the scan path.
Argument: Applicant argues regarding amended claim 3 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness in view of Ng / Goldfine that the amended claim’s deficiencies highlighted by the amendment is not met by the disclosures of Ng / Goldfine.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ng (US 2018/0029127).
Regarding claim 1, Ng discloses a method (see method of [0030]) of additively manufacturing (see title, abs, [0030]) a manufactured component (see object to be fabricated of [0030]) utilizing an additive manufacturing system (see additive manufacturing apparatus, Id.), the method comprising:
supplying a feedstock material (feed material, Id.) along a scan path (see beam scan path, Id.) of the additive manufacturing system;
delivering, from an energy source (energy source 114 of [0036]) of the additive manufacturing system and to an addition location (most any location energy is delivered is considered the scan path – see Fig. 1 which shows a location that the beam from energy source 114 hits the feed material – [0036]) along the scan path, an amount of energy sufficient to form a melt pool (see melting and subsequent re-solidification – unclaimed - of [0040]) of the feedstock material at the addition location; and
during the delivering the amount of energy, moving (see movable beam of [0036]) the addition location along the scan path to move the melt pool along the scan path and define a consolidated material track (see solid mass of material formed by melting and re-solidification of [0040]) from the feedstock material;
wherein the delivering the amount of energy includes selectively varying the amount of energy (selectively adjusted energy profile of abs, claims 1, 11) as a function of position along the scan path to at least one of (only one of the 2 Markush group alternatives need be present to meet and reject the claim):
increase in uniformity (see increased uniformity along beam scans of [0015], [0030], [0038], [0054]) of the consolidated material track as a function of position along a length of the scan path.
PNG
media_image1.png
557
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ng discloses wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy includes at least one of selectively varying an input power of the amount of energy (energy beam profile variations are interpreted as satisfying the BRI of input power of the amount of energy – see altering of the intensity profile of an energy beam of [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, since most any object manufactured by the method can be considered a test object for analysis, Ng discloses (see rejection of independent claim 1 above) wherein the method further includes forming a test component (most any additive manufacturing apparatus that can repeatedly print multiple objects with or without removal therebetween is sufficient to meet this limitation, as there is limited structural constraint on the structure of the apparatus / product of Ng – the Ng reference’s apparatus is interpreted as capable of such a functional limitation), wherein the forming the test component includes performing the supplying the feedstock material (see feed material of [0031] as powder), the delivering the amount of energy (fusing system 102 of [0031]), and the moving the addition location for a plurality of preselected values of the amount of energy ([0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Ng discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage media (see controller of abs, controller 124 of [0033]-[0035] and Fig. 1) including computer-executable instructions thereon (see computer programs of [0082]) that, when executed, direct an additive manufacturing system to perform the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, the method is practiced by the additive manufacturing apparatus 100 of [0031] and Fig. 1).
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 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2018/0029127), and further in view of Beuth (US 2016/0041111).
Regarding claim 4, the Ng reference discloses wherein the consolidated material track extends between an initiation location and a termination location (most every infilling path includes an initiation location and a termination location – see [0045] which indicates that the beam path follows a selectively adjusted intensity profile 406).
Ng fails to disclose wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy includes at least one of (only one of a Markush group need be present to meet / reject the claimed subject matter):
selectively increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location; and
monotonically increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location.
Beuth discloses wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy (see increasing the magnitude of power change of [0031]) includes selectively (most any increase can be considered a selective increase) increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the increasing of the amount of the energy / power as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location as in Beuth in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it decreased the time needed to change the melt pool size ([0031]) and because the process maps may be used to identify pairs of initial and final process variables that yield a similar transitional behavior (Id.). Increasing, decreasing and keeping constant the power of the energy beam are alternatives immediately envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, the Ng reference discloses wherein the consolidated material track extends between an initiation location and a termination location (most every infilling path includes an initiation location and a termination location – see [0045] which indicates that the beam path follows a selectively adjusted intensity profile 406).
Ng fails to disclose wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy includes at least one of (only one of a Markush group need be present to meet / reject the claimed subject matter):
selectively increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location; and
monotonically increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location.
Beuth discloses wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy (see increasing the magnitude of power change of [0031]) includes selectively (most any increase can be considered a selective increase) increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location. This meets the claimed subject matter where the amount of energy at the initiation region is less than the amount of energy within the termination region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the increasing of the amount of the energy / power as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location as in Beuth in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it decreased the time needed to change the melt pool size ([0031]) and because the process maps may be used to identify pairs of initial and final process variables that yield a similar transitional behavior (Id.).
Regarding claim 8, the Ng reference discloses wherein the consolidated material track extends between an initiation location and a termination location (most every infilling path includes an initiation location and a termination location – see [0045] which indicates that the beam path follows a selectively adjusted intensity profile 406).
Ng fails to disclose wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy includes at least one of (only one of a Markush group need be present to meet / reject the claimed subject matter):
selectively increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location; and
monotonically increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location.
Beuth discloses wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy (see increasing the magnitude of power change of [0031]) includes selectively (most any increase can be considered a selective increase) increasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location. This meets the claimed subject matter where the amount of energy at the initiation region is less than the amount of energy within the termination region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the increasing of the amount of the energy / power as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location as in Beuth in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it decreased the time needed to change the melt pool size ([0031]) and because the process maps may be used to identify pairs of initial and final process variables that yield a similar transitional behavior (Id.).
Claims 5-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2018/0029127), and further in view of Shapovalov (US 2010/0018953).
Regarding claim 5, the Ng reference discloses wherein the consolidated material track extends between an initiation location and a termination location (most every infilling path includes an initiation location and a termination location – see [0045] which indicates that the beam path follows a selectively adjusted intensity profile 406).
Ng fails to disclose wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy includes at least one of:
selectively decreasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination; and
monotonically decreasing the amount of energy as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location.
Shapovalov discloses selectively decreasing (see power of the energy beam is decreased of [0032]) the amount of energy.
It would have been obvious to decrease the amount of energy of the laser beam power as in Shapovalov in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so yielded the predictable result of reducing the temperature of the melt pool, allowing for the newly deposited metal to not bond to the substrate (Id.) which was desirable. KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
The combination Ng / Shapovalov meets the claim limitation wherein power is decreased as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location because the power is decreased in Shapovalov and the beam / melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location in Ng, so their combination meets the recited subject matter when properly bodily incorporated. Increasing, decreasing and keeping constant the power of the energy beam are alternatives immediately envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, the Ng reference discloses wherein the consolidated material track extends between an initiation location and a termination location (most every infilling path includes an initiation location and a termination location – see [0045] which indicates that the beam path follows a selectively adjusted intensity profile 406), wherein the consolidated material track defined an initiation region (most any initial center point of an initiation location can be considered to have a spot diameter with a region associated therewith, whether or not the region is the melt pool or not), which is proximate the initiation location (near to / in the vicinity thereof); a termination region, which is proximate the termination location (most any final center point of a termination location can be considered to have a spot diameter with a region associated therewith, whether or not the region is the melt pool or not); and a steady state region, which extends between the initiation region and the termination region (interpreted broadly and reasonably as the beam scan path / infill).
Ng fails to disclose wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy as a function of position includes selectively varying such that the amount of energy within the initiation region is at least one of:
greater than the amount of energy within the steady-state region; and
greater than the amount of energy within the termination region.
Shapovalov discloses selectively decreasing (see power of the energy beam is decreased of [0032]) the amount of energy as a function of beam path position / melt pool location. This makes the beam at the termination have a lesser amount of power than at the initiation region, thereby meeting the claimed recited subject matter.
It would have been obvious to decrease the amount of energy of the laser beam power as the beam follows its path along the melt pool as in Shapovalov in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so yielded the predictable result of reducing the temperature of the melt pool, allowing for the newly deposited metal to not bond to the substrate (Id.) which was desirable. KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
The combination Ng / Shapovalov meets the claim limitation wherein power is decreased as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location because the power is decreased in Shapovalov and the beam / melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location in Ng, so their combination meets the recited subject matter when properly bodily incorporated.
Regarding claim 9, the Ng reference discloses wherein the consolidated material track extends between an initiation location and a termination location (most every infilling path includes an initiation location and a termination location – see [0045] which indicates that the beam path follows a selectively adjusted intensity profile 406), wherein the consolidated material track defined an initiation region (most any initial center point of an initiation location can be considered to have a spot diameter with a region associated therewith, whether or not the region is the melt pool or not), which is proximate the initiation location (near to / in the vicinity thereof); a termination region, which is proximate the termination location (most any final center point of a termination location can be considered to have a spot diameter with a region associated therewith, whether or not the region is the melt pool or not); and a steady state region, which extends between the initiation region and the termination region (interpreted broadly and reasonably as the beam scan path / infill).
Ng fails to disclose wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy as a function of position includes selectively varying such that the amount of energy within the initiation region is at least one of:
greater than the amount of energy within the steady-state region; and
greater than the amount of energy within the termination region.
Shapovalov discloses selectively decreasing (see power of the energy beam is decreased of [0032]) the amount of energy as a function of beam path position / melt pool location. This makes the beam at the termination have a lesser amount of power than at the initiation region, thereby meeting the claimed recited subject matter.
It would have been obvious to decrease the amount of energy of the laser beam power as the beam follows its path along the melt pool as in Shapovalov in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so yielded the predictable result of reducing the temperature of the melt pool, allowing for the newly deposited metal to not bond to the substrate (Id.) which was desirable. KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
The combination Ng / Shapovalov meets the claim limitation wherein power is decreased as the melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location because the power is decreased in Shapovalov and the beam / melt pool moves from the initiation location to the termination location in Ng, so their combination meets the recited subject matter when properly bodily incorporated.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2018/0029127), and further in view of Slavens (US 2016/0326880).
Regarding claim 10, Ng fails to disclose wherein selectively varying the amount of energy including selectively varying the amount of energy to increase the uniformity of the consolidated material energy track relative to a conventional consolidated material track formed via delivery of a constant amount of energy as a function of position along a conventional scan path.
Slavens discloses use of a melt pool in an additive manufacturing system and associated method (see title, abs, [0041]) wherein a constant energy gun power is utilized (see [0041] and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the constant power energy gun of Slavens with the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the creation of objects with equiax grain properties ([0041]). KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Regarding claim 11, Ng fails to disclose wherein selectively varying the amount of energy includes selectively varying the amount of energy to increase at least one of:
a transverse cross-sectional uniformity of the consolidated material track as a function of position along the length of the scan path;
a transverse width uniformity of the consolidated material track as a function of position along the length of the scan path;
a transverse shape uniformity of the consolidated material track as a function of position along the length of the scan path; and
a transverse volume uniformity of the consolidated material track as a function of position along the length of the scan path.
Slavens discloses use of a melt pool in an additive manufacturing system and associated method (see title, abs, [0041]) wherein a constant energy gun power is utilized (see [0041] and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the constant power energy gun of Slavens with the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the creation of objects with equiax grain properties ([0041]). KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2018/0029127), and further in view of Buser (US 2014/0265035).
Regarding claim 12, Ng fails to disclose wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy includes utilizing at least one process parameter value for the additive manufacturing system as an input to an energy variation model to predict a desired amount of energy as a function of position along the scan path that increases the uniformity of the consolidated material track, wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy further includes delivering the desired amount of energy as a function of position along the scan path, and further wherein the method includes operating the additive manufacturing system according to the process parameter value during the delivering the amount of energy and moving the addition location.
Buser discloses varying the amount of energy in response to a stored process parameter model ([0005]-[0007] and claim 21; see also Fig. 2) as an input to an energy variation model for the additive manufacturing system to cause an energy variation which connotes the amount of energy supplied to the scan path, wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy further includes delivering the desired amount of energy as a function of position along the scan path (Id.), and further wherein the method includes operating the additive manufacturing system according to the process parameter value to improve uniformity (see desired accuracy of [0023]), and further wherein the method includes operating the additive manufacturing system according to the process parameter value during the delivering the amount of energy and the moving the addition location (interpreted broadly and reasonably as the desired spatial variation of the shape of the object causes the applied thermal energy of the beam to change along the addition location / infilling path – see [0005]-[0007]).
PNG
media_image2.png
507
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the manipulation of the applied thermal energy as a function of the xyz positioning assembly deposition point as in Buser to the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so improved the accuracy of the manufactured part ([0023], controlled applied energy of [0031]). KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Regarding claim 13, the combination Ng / Buser discloses wherein a model of the object to be manufactured is stored and the input power / amount of thermal energy is controlled to construct the object ([0005]-[0007]), which meets the limitation wherein the process parameter value includes at least one of: an input power of the amount of energy.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2018/0029127), and further in view of Chapman (US 2021/0323090).
Regarding claim 14, the Ng reference fails to disclose wherein the method includes repeating the moving to form a plurality of consolidated material tracks from the feedstock material, wherein each consolidated material track of the plurality of consolidated material tracks extends at least partially adjacent another consolidated material track of the plurality of consolidated material tracks such that the plurality of consolidated material tracks defines a corresponding overlap region between each consolidated material track and the [an]other consolidated material track, wherein a variation in a transverse width of the corresponding overlap region is less than a conventional transverse width of a conventional overlap region defined between adjacent conventional consolidated material tracks.
Chapman discloses an additive manufacturing method (title, abs) wherein beam parameters (see offset of infilling pattern hatchings of [0056]) are modified to create an overlap region that is less than a conventional transverse width of a conventional overlap region (most any overlap region width can be considered a conventional transverse width region as broadly interpreted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the overlap region in an infilling pattern as in Chapman, treating it as a result-effective variable for modification in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the optimization of the additive manufacturing process through tuning of numerous art-recognized processing parameters, including power, scan speed, beam size / width / diameter, offset and others ([0056]). See MPEP 2144.04-05 regarding the obviousness of routine optimizations of art-recognized parameters to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the claim does not specifically recite an overlapping distance of the consolidated material track overlap regions that overlap, the distance cannot be considered critical.
Regarding claim 15, the Ng reference fails to disclose wherein the method includes repeating the moving to form a plurality of consolidated material tracks from the feedstock material, wherein each consolidated material track of the plurality of consolidated material tracks extends at least partially adjacent another consolidated material track of the plurality of consolidated material tracks such that the plurality of consolidated material tracks defines a corresponding overlap region between each consolidated material track and the [an]other consolidated material track, wherein a variation in a transverse width of the corresponding overlap region is less than a conventional transverse width of a conventional overlap region defined between adjacent conventional consolidated material tracks.
Chapman discloses an additive manufacturing method (title, abs) wherein beam parameters (see offset of infilling pattern hatchings of [0056]) are modified to create an overlap region that is less than a conventional transverse width of a conventional overlap region (most any overlap region width can be considered a conventional transverse width region as broadly interpreted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the overlap region in an infilling pattern as in Chapman, treating it as a result-effective variable for modification in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the optimization of the additive manufacturing process through tuning of numerous art-recognized processing parameters, including power, scan speed, beam size / width / diameter, offset and others ([0056]). See MPEP 2144.04-05 regarding the obviousness of routine optimizations of art-recognized parameters to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the claim does not specifically recite an overlapping distance of the consolidated material track overlap regions that overlap, the distance cannot be considered critical.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2018/0029127), and further in view of Batchelder (US 2017/0239884).
Regarding claim 16, the Ng reference discloses wherein the scan path extends between an initiation location and a termination location (see rejection of claim 1 above – most any location where the beam starts can be an initiation location, where the beam ends can be a termination location – the claim has not recited that they are different locations).
Ng fails to disclose wherein the scan path includes a turn-around region, and further wherein at least one of:
the initiation location is positioned between the termination location and the turn-around region; and
the termination location is positioned between the initiation location and the turn-around region.
Batchelder discloses an additive manufacturing method (see title, abs) wherein the termination location is positioned between the initiation location and the turn-around region (interpreted broadly and reasonably as wherein the U-turn is between the start of the laser path and the end of the laser path – see Batchelder [0137] and Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the u-shaped infilling pattern between the initiation location and termination location as in Batchelder in the additive manufacturing method of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the creation of two corners in the manufactured object ([0137]). KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Regarding claim 17, the combination Ng / Batchelder discloses (citations to Batchelder Fig. 10 and [0137]) wherein a first scan path segment extends between the initiation location and the turn around region, wherein a second scan path segment extends between the turn-around region and the termination location, wherein the first scan path segment is at least substantially parallel to the second scan path segment.
PNG
media_image3.png
424
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the combination Ng / Batchelder discloses (citations to Batchelder Fig. 10) wherein the first scan path segment is an at least partially linear first scan path segment, and further wherein the second scan path segment is an at least partially linear second scan path segment (interpreted as meaning that each of the first and second scan path regions have a linear portion thereof – see linear portions of Fig. 10 of Batchelder above).
Conclusion
Citation of relevant, pertinent prior art:
Goldfine (US 2018/0120260) discloses wherein the method further includes forming a test component (interpreted broadly and reasonably as most any second object fabricated before the manufactured component, it need not have the same exact shape as the manufactured component, as that is not positively recited by the claim – nor is how the geometric property of the analyzed / sensed cross-section modifies the properties of the manufactured component based on the test component’s analysis results) (see test object 130 of [0089] and Fig. 1), wherein the forming the test component includes performing the supplying the feedstock material (see supplied powder of the powder bed of [0088] and Fig. 4), the delivering the amount of energy (see processing laser of [0049]), and the moving the addition location for a plurality of preselected values of the amount of energy (most any value of the amount of energy can be considered preselected values – including always on at a certain power, or even a max power, for a given scan path and scan rate), wherein the method includes analyzing (see response signals 123 of [0089]) the test component (see test object 130 of Fig. 1 and [0089] – which has its properties measured) to generate a consolidated material track correlation (see measured and processing of response signals 123 of [0089], which meets the definition of a correlation) that describes at least one geometric property (see geometric property such as thickness, sensor lift-off of [0089]) of a transverse cross-section (most any cross-section can be considered a transverse cross-section as long as it is orthogonal / perpendicular / normal to the measured direction) of the consolidated material track for the plurality of pre-selected values (when the power is uniform / always on without patterning – since no patterning is required by the claim -, the geometric relationship of the consolidated material track and the transverse cross-section are identical when one material is in the powder bed – this is met by the disclosure of the Goldfine reference since material condition is also considered a variable recognized for alteration) of the amount of energy (most any amount of energy can be the amount of energy), and further wherein the selectively varying the amount of energy includes selectively varying the amount of energy based, at least in part, on the consolidated material track correlation (when there is no correlation or a constant correlation between the amount of energy supplied – considered as a power / flux, spot size / diameter, scan rate consideration – no correlation is considered as met by the at least in part consolidated material track correlation, since no more specific correlation is specified in the claim – for example, direct, indirect, linear, non-linear correlations between the consolidated material track energy applied and the transverse cross-section’s energy applied).
PNG
media_image4.png
826
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cullen (US 20140271326) discloses additive manufacturing by powder sintering (see title, abs, [0043]) wherein the laser power is adjusted / changed / controlled or the scanning speed is adjusted as the laser beam is moved across the powder layers ([0043]).
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 GUY F MONGELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-7904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, SAM ZHAO can be reached on (571)270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUY F MONGELLI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights