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 1-10 in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCarthy et al. (US 2021/0187830 A1, hereinafter “McCarthy”).
Regarding claim 1, McCarthy teaches an additive manufacturing system including at least two laser devices and at least two laser scanning devices (McCarthy, [0004]). The at least two laser devices include a first laser device configured to generate a first laser beam for consolidating a first portion of a solid component and a second laser device configured to generate a second laser beam for consolidating a second portion of the solid component (McCarthy, [0004]). McCarthy teaches the at least two laser scanning devices include a first laser scanning device and a second laser scanning device where the first laser scanning device is configured to selectively direct the first laser beam across a powder bed along a plurality of first hatching paths and at least one first contour path that defines a contour of the solid component (McCarthy, [0004]).
The second laser scanning device is configured to selectively direct the second laser beam across the powder bed along a plurality of second hatching paths and at least one second contour path that defines the contour of the solid component (McCarthy, [0004]). McCarthy further teaches the at least one first contour path includes a first hook extending into the plurality of second hatching paths (McCarthy, [0004]). McCarthy also teaches hooks each extend from overlapping extensions of first contour path and second contour path where a first hook extends from overlapping extension of first contour path into main portions of second hatching path, and a second hook extends from overlapping extension of second contour path into main portions of first hatching path (McCarthy, [0049]).
Therefore, the apparatus of McCarthy is the same as the currently claimed system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, McCarthy teaches straight extension of first hook forms a first hook angle with end of overlapping extension of first hatching paths, and straight extension of second hook forms a second hook angle with end of overlapping extension of second hatching path (McCarthy, [0050]), which corresponds to wherein the at least one second contour path includes a second hook extending along the contour of the second portion of the solid component into the at least one first contour path of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, McCarthy teaches first hatching paths and second hatching paths at least partially overlap each other in the y-direction in an overlapping region (McCarthy, [0047]), which corresponds to wherein the plurality of first hatching paths at least partially overlap the plurality of second hatching paths of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, McCarthy teaches first contour path and second contour path also at least partially overlap each other in the y-direction in overlapping region (McCarthy, [0047]), which corresponds to wherein the at least one first contour path at least partially overlaps the at least one second contour path of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, McCarthy teaches laser scanning device and laser scanning device are misaligned such that first hatching paths and second hatching paths are misaligned in the x-direction and first contour path and second contour path are also misaligned in the x-direction (McCarthy, [0047]), which corresponds to wherein the at least one first contour path and the at least one second contour path are at least partially misaligned of claim 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
355
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 7, McCarthy teaches hooks each extend from overlapping extensions of first contour path and second contour path where a first hook extends from overlapping extension of first contour path into main portions of second hatching path, and a second hook extends from overlapping extension of second contour path into main portions of first hatching path (McCarthy, [0049]). McCarthy also teaches Figure 4, which shows at least one first/second contour path including an upper first/second contour path and a lower first/second contour path, the upper first/second contour path and the lower first/second contour path each including a first/second hook formed therein. Therefore, McCarthy corresponds to claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 8, McCarthy teaches straight extension of first hook forms a first hook angle with end of overlapping extension of first hatching paths (McCarthy, [0050]), which corresponds to wherein the first hook defines a first main portion and a first hooked portion of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, McCarthy teaches optical detector detects a misalignment between laser devices and computing device directs controller to add hooks to first contour path and second contour path when a misalignment occurs (McCarthy, [0053]), which corresponds to further comprising: an optical detector detecting a misalignment between the first laser device and the second laser device; and a controller configured to operate the first laser scanning device to form the first hook in response to the optical detector detecting the misalignment of claim 10.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (US 2021/0187830 A1, hereinafter “McCarthy”).
PNG
media_image2.png
234
211
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, McCarthy teaches hook angles may include angles from about 0-90° but may include any angle that enables hooks to operate and are determined (McCarthy, [0051]). While, McCarthy states the hook angle is 0-90°, it is unclear from where the angle is measured, however, based on Figure 4 (Examiner is including a zoomed in view of the angles), the angle is actually between 90-180°, which would overlap with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights