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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2023, 07/10/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
A method for location-specific probabilistic prediction of formation of a defect in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of an article, the method comprising:
determining first statistical distributions of multiple process parameters selected from laser power, scan speed, laser spot size, and powder layer thickness and density;
based on the first statistical distributions, for locations across the article, determining second statistical distributions of a threshold temperature (Tthresh) for formation of the defect at each of the locations;
determining a cumulative temperature thermal history (To) at each of the locations across the article;
for each of the locations across the article, determining a probability of formation of the defect based upon a probability of Tthresh versus To; and
from the probability of formation of the defect at each of the locations, generating an article integrity map.
Step 1: the claim recites a method for location-specific probabilistic prediction of formation of a defect in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of an article comprises a series of steps, and therefore is to a process, which is one of the statutory category of invention.
At step 2A Prong One: the limitations recite(s) (a) - (e) are collectively amount to mathematical modeling, statistical analysis, and probabilistic comparison data, which fall into the “Mathematical Concept” group of abstract ideas, including mathematical relationships, calculations, and data evaluation. This limitation also falls into the “Mental Process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be performed in the human mind with the help and pen and paper. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the steps of “determining” and “generating” in the text of this claim encompasses obtaining/observing at the variations in key process parameter, calculating a threshold temperature for each location based on the variation, computing the accumulated heat at each location overtime, use probability theory to compare, at each location, the likelihood that the actual temperature history will exceed the temperature threshold, compose a map showing where defects are more or less likely based on the comparison. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to the physical additive manufacturing process itself, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a). Rather, it analyzes process parameters and temperature data to predict the likelihood of defect information, which constitutes collecting, analyzing, and displaying information. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claim references “power bed fusion additive manufacturing”, the reference merely provide a technological environment in which the abstract idea is applied (SEE MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not recite any control or adjustment to the manufacturing equipment based on the calculated probabilities, modifying any parameters, physically forming or altering the article, or any other action that used the calculated probabilities to affect a technological improvement. Instead, the claim merely directed to an output of analyzed data and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim does not recite any additional elements that considered amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. All steps may perform using generic computing techniques to perform statistical calculations and comparisons. The recitation of known manufacturing parameters (laser power, scan speed, etc.) merely supplies input data and does not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into paten-eligible subject matter. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2-10, they depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate all of its limitations.
Claims 2 and 3 further specify how the first statistical distributions are determined, including collecting in-situ measurement data using sensors and iteratively adjusting assumed statistical distributions based on comparison simulated and experimental defect volumes. These limitations recite data collection, comparison, and adjustment, all which constitute abstract mental processes and mathematical operations implement using generic computing components. The recited sensors are merely used to gather data for the abstract statistical analysis therefore insignificant extra-solution activity (SEE MPEP 2106(g)). Accordingly, claims 2-3 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claims 4-7 further limit the method by classify an expected magnitude of statistical distributions and selecting among mathematical techniques (Taylor series expansion, analytical approaches, or interpolation) based on the classification. These limitations are directed to mathematical classifications and selecting of mathematical solution techniques, which are themselves abstract ideas (SEE MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Selecting among known analytical methods based on a classification is a form of algorithmic decision-making and does not recite any improvement to computer technology or additive manufacturing hardware. Therefore, claims 4-7 merely refine the mathematic analysis underlying the abstract idea and do not amount to significant more.
Claim 8 further recites generating article integrity maps for a plurality of additive manufacturing machines to characterize manufacturing quality capability. This limitation extends the abstract idea to additional data sets and comparative evaluation across machines, which is still a form of data aggregation, analysis, and reporting. As such, claim 8 remains directed to abstract data analysis and presentation.
Claims 9-10 specify particular defect types (keyhole and lack-of-fusion defects) and define the probability of formation based on relative comparisons of threshold temperature and cumulative temperature history. These limitation merely specify the type of defect being modeled and the mathematical inequality used in the probabilistic comparison, which are abstract mathematical relationships. Identifying different defect mechanism does not change the fundamental nature of the claim as a probabilistic prediction based on calculated value. Accordingly, claims 9-10 do not add any meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, claims 2-10 do not integrate the abstract idea identified in claim 1 into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 2-10 are also not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11-20, the claims are directed to a computer-readable storage device having a program with a set of instructions executable to perform the same steps of claims 1-10. Therefore, they are rejected on same set forth hereinabove. Thus, they also not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
US Pub. No. 2023/0182235 Penny et al. teach a method that allow for real-time data gathering and assessment of various parameters associated with the printing. Various parameters and other data can be monitored and recorded and, in some instances, those parameters and/or other data can be utilized to adjust a print plan for the additive manufacturing. Alternatively, or additionally, the recorded parameters and data can be recorded but not actively used, at least not in approximate real-time. The parameters and data can be used for various assessments and other information at a later point in time. The parameters and other data that is measured, determined, or otherwise acquired can be obtained by way of a spectrometer that is operated during the manufacturing process. In some instances, the parameters and other data can be relied upon to determine if any changes are needed to the way printing is occurring (i.e., the build plan).
US Pub. No. 2022/0219239 to Elwany et al. teach a method for determining processing parameters for an alloy. In one embodiment, the method includes performing a simulation of melt pool temperature and melt pool geometries for an alloy at a plurality of combinations of a laser speed parameter and a laser power parameter, creating an initial printability map based on the laser speed parameter and the laser power parameter based on the simulation of melt pool temperature and melt pool geometries, defining, within the printability map, one or more regions of the printability map that correspond to one or more manufacturing defects, sampling the printability map to determine a plurality of samples within the printability map, where each sample includes a value of the laser speed parameter and a value of the laser power parameter, performing a set of single-track experiments corresponding to the plurality of samples, calibrating the printability map based on the set of single-track experiments to create a revised printability map, generating a plurality of hatch spacing contours defining a spacing between adjacent beads in a three-dimensional printed part, and adding the plurality of hatch spacing contours to the revised printability map to create a final printability map, where the final printability map represents a printability characteristic of the alloy at a plurality of combinations of laser speed, laser power, and hatch spacing [0007].
US Pub. No. 2023/0302539 to McCarthy et al. teach a method for predicting the formation of defects within a printed part, wherein experimental data, simulation data, or sensor data related to the part, or some combination of all three is analyzed to understand melt pool behavior. Based off this analysis a signed distance function representing the shape of the defect or a probability heat map indicating the formation of the defect, or a combination of the two is computed by using analytical or image processing techniques. Next, the process sweeps the signed distance function and probability heat map into three dimensions to create a representation of the defect on the part. For two or more melt pools or defects, the process can combine the signed distance and probability values in order to predict the defects for multiple sections of the part. Lastly, the process proceeds to iso-surface extraction, whereby certain surfaces are analyzed to determine boundary representation of the part with sub-voxel accuracy based on the signed distance functions and the probability values. In addition, other post-processing techniques can be used to find further defects in the section or part.
“The Analytical Prediction of Thermal Distribution and Defect Generation of Inconel 718 by Selective Laser Melting” to Huadong Yang et al. teach a numerical analysis method for predicting the melt pool and defects of metal additive manufacturing is proposed. Compared with other numerical simulation methods, it is easier to operate and can quickly propose optimized process parameters. In this method, considering the actual situation of IN718’s absorptivity related to temperature, laser power, scanning speed, layer thickness and other process parameters, a modified analytical solution is presented to overcome the disadvantage of existing method which viewed absorptivity as a constant, and compare it with other numerical simulation methods and experimental results for validation. By analyzing of temperature field distribution, melt pool characteristics, and then the generation of defects can be predicted.
Claims 1-20 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claim(s). Specifically, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination the system and method comprise the steps of determining first statistical distributions of multiple process parameters…based on the first statistical distributions, for locations across the article, determining second statistical distributions of a threshold temperature (Tthresh) for formation of the defect at each of the locations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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 S Shah can be reached at 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 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115