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 1-30 in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 31-62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/13/2023, 03/27/2024 and 07/03/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
A detailed 101 analysis is presented as following according to MPE 2106.
First, according to MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1, instant claims 1, 26, 29 and 30 are all directed to method of additively manufacturing including steps of applying, obtaining, processing and determining, adjusting or modifying. It should be first noted obtaining, processing, determining, adjusting or modifying are all mental steps which merely requires human mind to process and collect the information. Second, applying an energy beam to melt a material to form a weld pool that cools to form a portion of a build piece is a well known and conventional step as evidenced by Chen (CN109507187).
Second, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One, once the evaluation is obtained based on the processed spectral information, a defect condition is determined followed by nothing. Again, the determination of the defect is a mental step which is directed to an abstract idea. Adjusting/modifying the process parameter based on the obtained spectral/mushy zone information is also a mental step.
Third, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two. Claims 1, 26, 29 and 30 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There is no application much less a particular practical application.
Fourth, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2B whether a claim amounts to significantly more. In the instant case, there are no additional limitations or steps that add something significantly more than the abstract idea because applying step of claims 1, 26, 29 and 30 is well known and conventional as indicated above.
At best, claims 1, 26, 29 and 30 are recited to gather spectral data to determine a defect condition or to adjust process parameter base on the gathered data. But it should be noted that data gathering in a general way is insignificant extra-solution activity according to MEPE 2106.05(g). Adding (emphasis added) insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
As a result of rejected independent claims 1, 26, 29 and 30, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-28 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.
The term “a desired effective absorptivity” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired effective” 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.
As a result of rejected claim 26, all dependent claims are rejected under the same statue.
Claim Interpretation
It should be noted instant independent claims 1, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. Hence, examiner takes the position that if prior art anticipates claims 1, 26, 29 and 30, all dependent claims are also rejected under 101 and 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (CN109507187A).
As for claims 1-30, Chen discloses in abstract:
a method and a device for diagnosing defects of laser additive manufacturing, in order to overcome the defect of flaw diagnosis during the process of laser additive manufacturing. The method specifically comprises the following steps: (1) utilizing a spectrum sensing information collecting device to collect spectrum information, thereby acquiring a time domain map of spectral line intensity fluctuating following time; (2) utilizing a visual sensing information collecting device to collect visual information, thereby acquiring a time domain map of molten pool area changing following time; (3) performing manufacturing defect analysis on the time domain maps acquired in steps (1) and (2). Here, the molten pool is expected to include a melt pool and mushy zone.
Figure 1 illustrates worktable 1, a laser beam 5 that is perpendicularly irradiated on a substrate 2 and focused on the material surface, and coaxial powder feeding is performed at a certain rate to carry out laser additive manufacturing.
The spectrum sensing information collecting device is a fiber optic spectrometer (7) (Figure 1 and [0023]) The visual sensing information collecting device is a camera (3 of Figure 1 and [0024]).
The visual and spectrum information are expected to be collected in the same field of view.
An optical probe 9 along with mechanical universal rod 10 which aims to adjusting position and angle of the optical probe. Hence, shielding the optical spectrometer from reflected power of laser (5) is expected.
Based on the fluctuation of the relative radiation intensity of plasma at different wavelengths over time, characteristic spectral lines are determined. The time-domain graph of the relative radiation intensity of the characteristic spectral lines is filtered to obtain the time-domain graph of the spectral line intensity
fluctuation over time. [0010]
An information fusion method to extract the shape and grayscale features of light stripes in images with different illumination intensities in the same field of view. The extracted features are then used to identify weld edges. Hence, mushy zone is expected.
By studying the relationship between the change in the relative intensity of the spectral lines and the change in the laser power, laser output power is a controllable variable to analyze the defect, which suggest modifying a process parameter of the additive manufacturing.
Since in spectroscopy, absorptivity (often expressed as molar absorptivity, ε) is a measure of how strongly a substance absorbs radiation at a given wavelength, instant claim 26 required adjusting a process parameter to obtain a desired effective absorptivity of weld pool is expected.
Claim(s) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (CN111795977A).
As for claims 1-30, Liu discloses a metal additive manufacturing multiple monitoring device online real-time monitoring system, comprising: a high speed camera detection module for detecting the three-dimensional profile precision and molten pool profile of the additive manufacturing piece; a visible spectrometer detection module for detecting the deflection angle of the laser; an infrared thermal imager detecting module for detecting the temperature of the molten pool; a near visible high spectrum camera detecting module; detecting the space information and the spectrum information of the molten pool and sputtering; an interference imaging spectrometer detection module, obtaining the two-dimensional space image and one-dimensional spectrum information of the additive manufacturing piece, a stress strain detection module, monitoring the additive manufacturing stress strain data; a laser ultrasonic detection module, matched with the rotary processing table for detecting the surface and near surface defect of the additive manufacturing piece; electronic computer fault scanning module, matched with the rotary processing table for detecting the internal defect and internal geometric profile of the additive manufacturing piece; a laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy detecting module; determining the material component and content of additive manufacturing material; after the central processor finds the processing error and metallurgy defect, feeding back to the metal additive manufacturing processing end. The central processor generates modification information corresponding to the metal additive manufacturing processing end by the model, modification information specifically can be the track adjusting amount and moving speed adjusting amount of the laser beam, laser intensity adjusting amount, deflection angle adjusting amount of the laser and so on.
Hence, Liu anticipated claims 1-30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights