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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 15 lines of text and 150 words. It needs to be shortened. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means” in claim 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-6 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “means to transmit …” which has not been sufficiently disclosed.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected for the same reason since they depend on claim 1 and have inherited the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “loose build powder” which causes ambiguity. The term “loose” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loose” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Also claim 1 recites “additional build powder” without the term “loose”, and it is unclear if it refers to a different powder. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[loose]] build powder”.
Claim 1 recites a phrase "and, optionally, the synchronous data from the at least one synchronous sensor" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term “optionally” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the phrase has been construed as being deleted.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “means” which has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because claim 1 is an apparatus claim comprising a component “means” whose structure is unclear. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation “means” has been construed as “a transmitter”. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1 and have inherited the same deficiencies. Therefore, claims 2-6 are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 recite a limitation “at least one of …, and …”. The plain meaning of phrase “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B” (for more details please see Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) and/or SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). According to the disclosure of the specification, Applicant’s intended meaning of the limitation should be at least any one of the recited characteristics. For continuing examination purpose, this limitation in the claims has been construed as "at least one of …, [[and]] or …”.
Claim 3 recites a limitation “and the synchronous data from the at least one synchronous sensor” which lacks sufficient antecedent bases. Since claim 2 has recited “synchronous data” and “at least one synchronous sensor”, for continuing examination purpose, claim 3 has been construed as being dependent on claim 2 instead of claim 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 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWANAKA (US 20250050586 A1, hereinafter as “KAWANAKA”) in view of FLORIAN (DE 102020205637 A1, hereinafter as “FLORIAN”).
Regarding claim 1, KAWANAKA teaches:
A laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing system (apparatus 5 in FIG. 1 and [0038]), comprising:
a build plate (stage 518 in FIG. 1 and [0048]);
a build station piston configured to adjust the height of the build plate as a part is built on top of the build plate (FIG. 1 and [0049]);
a powder chamber (power chamber shown in 515 in FIG. 1 and [0048]) configured to contain build powder, wherein the powder chamber surrounds the build plate;
a laser system (laser source 501 in FIG. 1) configured to direct a laser beam onto the build powder to form a melt pool, wherein when the melt pool forms a layer of the part as the melt pool solidifies (FIG. 1 and [0038, 0053]) and wherein as each layer of the part is formed the build station piston lowers the build plate and part by a predetermined distance corresponding to a desired thickness of a next layer of the part (FIG. 1 and [0049]);
a powder coater (recoater 513 in FIG. 1 and[0052]) configured to distribute additional build powder over the part after completion of each layer of the part;
a controller (controller 530 in FIG. 1);
at least one sensor configured to capture data indicative of visually observable changes ([0043]: “the chamber 510 may include, for example, a camera that captures an image of the powder bed formed on the stage 518 of the additive manufacturing unit 515”); and
a transmitter to transmit to the controller the data from the at least one sensor ([0122]: “the monitoring information 76 includes brightness, temperature, wavelength, optical image, …”; And [0129]: “The additive manufacturing apparatus 5 acquires monitoring information during additive manufacturing while additively manufacturing the modeled object by using this recipe”. All these teach the image data captured by the camera are transmitted to the controller).;
wherein the controller is configured to process the data from the at least one sensor to determine whether conditions in the LPBF additive manufacturing system are suitable for formation of or potentional formation of defects in the part ([0125]: “The defect determination unit 69 determines a defect from the monitoring information 76 according to the model generated by the data processing unit 67, …”. This teaches to process the monitoring information including image data to determine that the condition is the one wherein a defect is formed); and
wherein the controller is further configured to take at least one predetermined mitigation action to mitigate the formation of or potential formation of defects in the part ([0112]: “the first machine learning unit 47 outputs a new additive manufacturing condition as a recommended recipe from a combination of a plurality of additive manufacturing conditions and defect information”).
KAWANAKA teaches all the limitations except the at least one sensor is a neuromorphic sensor configured to capture asynchronous data indicative of visually observable changes to the melt pool.
However, FLORIAN teaches in an analogous art:
at least one neuromorphic sensor configured to capture asynchronous data indicative of visually observable changes to the melt pool (FIG. 1 and [0005]: “example, the monitoring device is designed to control the process for producing the joining connection. Specifically, the monitoring device is designed to determine and/or detect imperfections and/or defects in the joining connection. In particular, the monitoring device is trained to carry out the control, verification, evaluation and/or monitoring along and/or across the joint. A material bonded joining connection is, for example, a weld or a soldered seam”; [0008]: “The monitoring device features a dynamic vision sensor. The dynamic vision sensor is also specifically referred to as an event camera, neuromorphic camera and/or silicon retina. The dynamic vision sensor has a plurality of pixels and is specifically designed to detect and/or output changes in brightness in each pixel independently and/or asynchronously from the other pixels, whereby pixels for which no change in brightness can be detected remain silent and/or do not output a signal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KAWANAKA based on the teaching of FLORIAN, to make the system wherein the at least one sensor is a neuromorphic sensor configured to capture asynchronous data indicative of visually observable changes to the melt pool, and wherein the controller is configured to process the asynchronous data from the at least one neuromorphic sensor to determine whether conditions in the LPBF additive manufacturing system are suitable for formation of or potentional formation of defects in the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help reduce data, as FLORIAN teaches in [0010].
Regarding claim 4, KAWANAKA-FLORIAN teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
KAWANAKA further teaches:
the at least one predetermined mitigation action is at least one of:
notifying an operator of the formation of or potential formation of defects in the part;
changing at least one LPBF system operating parameter for at least the next layer of the build process ([0112]: “the first machine learning unit 47 outputs a new additive manufacturing condition as a recommended recipe from a combination of a plurality of additive manufacturing conditions and defect information”);
reworking all or part of a layer in which the defect was detected;
stopping the build process so the part can be reworked manually; or
stopping the build process so the part can be scrapped.
Regarding claim 6, KAWANAKA-FLORIAN teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
KAWANAKA further teaches:
changing at least one LPBF additive manufacturing system operating parameter for at least the next layer of the build process includes changing at least one of laser beam power, laser beam velocity, laser beam spot size, build plate temperature, layer thickness ([0112]: “the first machine learning unit 47 outputs a new additive manufacturing condition as a recommended recipe from a combination of a plurality of additive manufacturing conditions and defect information”; and [0114]: “The recipe 75 includes a heat source output, a scanning speed, a scanning line interval, and a stacking thickness, which are control factors for filling the inside of the modeled object”), laser hatch distance, laser hatch delay time, or laser hatch stripe width.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWANAKA in view of FLORIAN, and in further view of Schwarze (US 20220194011 A1, hereinafter as “Schwarze”).
Regarding claim 2, KAWANAKA-FLORIAN teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach at least one synchronous sensor configured to capture synchronous data that includes at least one of melt pool temperature or melt pool pressure, wherein the controller is configured to process the asynchronous data from the at least one neuromorphic sensor and the synchronous data from the at least one synchronous sensor to determine whether conditions in the LPBF additive manufacturing system are suitable for formation of or protentional formation of defects in the part.
However, Schwarze teaches in an analogous art:
at least one synchronous sensor configured to capture synchronous data that includes at least one of melt pool temperature or melt pool pressure ([0010]: “The data values may be the result of a sampling of the corresponding sensor with a constant sampling rate, such that intervals between the individual data values are known and constant. The process condition may be a physical process condition and may be measured, e.g., within a process chamber of the apparatus for producing a three-dimensional work piece. Examples of process conditions that may be measured are, amongst others, a temperature within the build chamber, an oxygen content within the build chamber, an inert gas pressure, and/or a melt pool temperature”).
Since KAWANAKA teaches in [0041] a temperature sensor 56 to measure temperature to help determine the defects, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KAWANAKA-FLORIAN based on the teaching of Schwarze, to make the system to further comprise at least one synchronous sensor configured to capture synchronous data that includes at least one of melt pool temperature, wherein the controller is configured to process the asynchronous data from the at least one neuromorphic sensor and the synchronous data from the at least one synchronous sensor to determine whether conditions in the LPBF additive manufacturing system are suitable for formation of or protentional formation of defects in the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help monitor the 3D printing process “online”, as Schwarze suggests in [0007].
Regarding claim 3, KAWANAKA-FLORIAN-Schwarze teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
KAWANAKA further teaches:
the controller is further configured to process at least one of laser beam power, laser beam velocity, laser beam spot size, build plate temperature ([0042]: “The temperature sensor 56 includes a contact type temperature sensor such as a thermocouple that measures a temperature of the stage 518, and a non-contact type temperature sensor such as an infrared radiation thermometer that measures a temperature of the powder bed formed on the stage 518”), layer thickness, laser hatch distance, laser hatch delay time, or laser hatch stripe width along with the asynchronous data from the at least one neuromorphic sensor and the synchronous data from the at least one synchronous sensor to determine whether conditions in the LPBF additive manufacturing system are suitable for the formation of or protentional formation of defects in the part ([0125]: “The defect determination unit 69 determines a defect from the monitoring information 76 according to the model generated by the data processing unit 67, …”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWANAKA in view of FLORIAN, and in further view of Rotman (US 20220288946 A1, hereinafter as “Rotman”).
Regarding claim 5, KAWANAKA-FLORIAN teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach notifying an operator of the formation of or potential formation of defects includes providing a visual or aural alert.
However, Rotman teaches in an analogous art:
notifying an operator of the formation of or potential formation of defects in the part, wherein notifying an operator of the formation of or potential formation of defects includes providing a visual or aural alert ([0077]: “the instructions 704 further comprise instructions 712 which, when executed by the processor 702, cause the processor 702 to, conditional on the likelihood of a printing defect exceeding the predetermined threshold, modify the digital image to include a visual indication of an alert and to display the digital image on a display screen (for example a monitor) for inspection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KAWANAKA-FLORIAN based on the teaching of Rotman, to make the system wherein the at least one predetermined mitigation action is at least one of notifying an operator of the formation of or potential formation of defects in the part, wherein notifying an operator of the formation of or potential formation of defects includes providing a visual or aural alert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification it can help facilitate a needed “inspection”, as Rotman suggests in [0077].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115