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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-29 are examined in this office action.
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 2-3, 5-10, 15-16, and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 15 recite the limitation "the wiper" in line 1 of claim 2 and line 2 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 1 recites “forming layers of powder material across a build platform to form a powder bed”, there is no previous recitation of “a wiper”.
Also, claim 16, which depends from claim 15, recites both “a wiper” and “the wiper”. As there is “the wiper” recited in claim 15, it is not clear whether “the wiper” refers to the earlier wiper in claim 16, the wiper in claim 15 or some other meaning. Care should be taken to correct claim 16 in conjunction with the correction of claim 15. Claim 3 is also rejected as it depends from claim 2 and does not solve the above issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the regions are determined, at least in part, by the parallel sections into which the scan paths of the region fall”. It is not clear how the regions are determined. As the claim requires that the determination of the region is based on the scan paths of the region, it is not clear how the region can be determined using scan paths that are already within the region. This circular requirements makes it unclear how a region is determined. Claims 6-10 and 19 are also rejected as they depend from claim 5 and do not solve the above issue.
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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method of planning scanning of scan paths in a powder bed selective solidification process comprising receiving scan paths for the energy beam to scan to consolidate powder material in the selected areas; determining whether a one of the scan paths straddles at least two parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided and assigning at least one scanner to direct a corresponding energy beam along the scan paths based upon the determination.
These limitations are all ones that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the preamble in claim 1, 21, and 23 and the limitations in claim 26 of forming layers of powder material across a build platform to form a powder bed and scanning at least one energy beam along scan paths across the powder bed to consolidate powder material of the powder bed in selected areas of each layer corresponding to the object. The creation of scan paths for the energy beam to scan to consolidate powder material in the selected areas can be performed as a metal process and making a determination whether a one of the scan paths straddles at least two parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided and assigning at least one scanner to direct a corresponding energy beam along the scan paths based upon the determination are all also metal process as a human can divide the build platform into different areas, determine whether a scan path straddles these areas, and assign a scanner to these scan paths. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all claim 1 recites is the intended use of a powder bed selective solidification process and does not further limit the claim, see MPEP § 2111.02(II). Further, while claims 26, 28 and 29 recites forming layers of powder material across a build platform to form a powder bed and scanning at least one energy beam along scan paths across the powder bed to consolidate powder material of the powder bed in selected areas of each layer corresponding to the object, powder bed additive manufacturing always involves the dispensing of powders to form the article followed by solidification. This is an essential and fundamental step in carrying out this sort of additive manufacturing process and therefore adding mental steps followed by this description of a powder bed additive manufacturing process does not integrate the creating scan paths and determining whether they straddle at least two parallel sections and assigning them to at least one scanner into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the dispensing of powders to form the article followed by scanning the beam across the powder bed, as noted above, is an essential and fundamental step in carrying out a powder bed additive manufacturing process and it is recited at a high level of generality and therefore it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, see MPEP § 2106.05(d). Further, the dependent claims also recite mental steps such as claim 3 wherein the parallel sections have straight borders, claims 4 and 12 of grouping the paths into regions, claims 5-6, 11-12, and 16 of dividing into parallel sections and basing scan paths thereupon, claims 6-7, 11, 19, and 21-22 of dividing the stripe into sub-regions, claims 8-9 and 25 of the scan paths existing transverse or perpendicular to the direction of the stripe, claim 10 involving the maximum width of the stripe, claim 13 of the scan paths comprising a raster pattern, claim 14 of scheduling an order, claims 15-16 of scheduling where a wiper is moving, claims 17-19 of assigning a plurality of scanners to different scan paths, regions, and sub regions, claim 20 of generating instructions for driving the scanner, and claim 23-25 dividing into a chequerboard pattern are nothing more than further mental steps. Also, the additional apparatus structure as claimed in claim 27 of a layer formation device, at least one scanner, and a controller is routine and conventional in the additive manufacturing art and would not amount to significantly more. Therefore the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-14, 20-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2014/0242400 A1 of Hoebel.
As to claim 1, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the instant case, in a powder bed selective solidification process, wherein an object is formed in a layer-by-layer manner by forming layers of powder material across a build platform to form a powder bed and scanning at least one energy beam across the powder bed to consolidate powder material of the powder bed in selected areas of each layer corresponding to the object is merely an intended use of the method of planning scanning of scan paths and does not add to the structure of the claimed method.
Hoebel discloses receiving scan paths for the energy beam to scan to consolidate powder material in the selected areas and determining whether a one of the scan paths straddles at least two parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided (Hoebel, Figs 3A and 3B and 4a) as Hoebel discloses orienting the scan paths in directions that shifted by 90°, Hoebel is disclosing where there is a determination when the scan paths straddle at least two parallel sections in order to effect the change in orientation. Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]) meeting the claim limitation of assigning at least one scanner to direct a corresponding energy beam along the scan paths based upon the determination.
As to claim 4, Hoebel discloses where the scan paths are grouped into regions as shown in Fig. 3A and 3B and performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, Figs. 3A and 3B and 4a and paragraph [0042]) meeting the claim limitation of the scan paths are grouped into regions and assigning the at least one scanner to directing the corresponding energy beam along the scan paths is based on assigning the at least one scanner to scanning of the scan paths by region.
As to claim 5, it is not clear what is meant by “wherein the regions are determined, at least in part, by the parallel sections into which the scan paths of the region fall”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring parallel sections for the scan paths such that these sections then form regions. Hoebel discloses where the regions are determined, at least in part, by the parallel sections into which the scan paths of the region fall as Hoebel discloses parallel sections where scan paths fall, thereby creating regions as Hoebel discloses areas which are parallel to one another (Hoebel, Figs. 3A and 3B and 4a).
As to claim 6, Hoebel discloses wherein the scan paths comprise a plurality of stripes as in Figs 3A and 3B there are rows of areas making up stripes (Hoebel, Figs. 3A and 3B and 4a). Hoebel discloses where each stripe formed from a plurality of parallel scan paths (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A). Hoebel discloses wherein a stripe of the plurality of stripes straddles at least two of the parallel sections, the method determining regions by dividing the stripe into sub-regions based upon the parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided as Hoebel discloses orienting the scan paths in directions that shifted by 90°, Hoebel is disclosing where there is a determination when the scan paths straddle at least two parallel sections in order to effect the change in orientation (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A). Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]) meeting the claim limitation wherein each sub-region is considered separately when assigning the at least one scanner to scanning of the scan paths.
As to claim 7, Hoebel discloses where the stripe of parallel sections is divided into sub-regions along a line parallel with the parallel scan paths that form the stripe (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A).
As to claims 8 and 9, Hoebel discloses both where the scan paths extend perpendicular and transverse to the longitudinal direction of the stripe (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A).
As to claim 10, Hoebel discloses in Fig 9 where the stripe is less than a corresponding width of the selected area to be consolidated and where the width of each stripe is defined by a maximum length of the parallel scan paths that form the stripes (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A, and 9).
As to claim 11, Hoebel discloses wherein at least one of the sub-regions extends into a lesser number of the parallel sections than the stripe as Hoebel discloses where some of the square sub-regions are cut off by the shape of the part while some extend in a column along the length of the part, thereby having sub-regions extends into a lesser number of the parallel sections than the stripe (Hoebel, Fig. 9).
As to claim 12, Hoebel discloses wherein the scan paths comprise a plurality of parallel scan paths and the plurality of parallel scan paths are grouped into regions by dividing the plurality of scan paths along a line parallel with the parallel scan paths, the line intersecting with a border between the parallel sections (Hoebel, Fig 4A).
As to claim 13, Hoebel discloses the scan paths comprise a raster scan pattern as the scan paths are scanned starting at the top left and moving to the bottom right in a row-by-row manner and the scan paths of the raster scan pattern are divided into regions based on the determination (Hoebel, Fig 4A; see arrow indicating movement between the areas).
As to claim 14, Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]) meeting the claim limitation of scheduling an order in which the scan paths are scanned based on the determination.
As to claim 20, Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]) meeting the claim limitation of comprising generating instructions for driving the at least one scanner during a powder bed selective solidification process based on the scan paths to which the at least one scanner is assigned as by scanning with an energy beam, there are instructions generated for driving the scanning energy beam.
As to claim 21, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the instant case, in a powder bed selective solidification process, wherein an object is formed in a layer-by-layer manner by forming layers of powder material across a build platform to form a powder bed and scanning at least one energy beam across the powder bed to consolidate powder material of the powder bed is merely an intended use of the method of planning scanning of scan paths and does not add to the structure of the claimed method.
Hoebel discloses receiving scan paths for the energy beam to scan to consolidate powder material in the selected areas and determining whether a one of the scan paths straddles at least two parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided (Hoebel, Figs 3A and 3B and 4a). Hoebel discloses wherein the scan paths comprise a plurality of stripes as in Figs 3A and 3B there are rows of areas making up stripes (Hoebel, Figs. 3A and 3B and 4a). Hoebel discloses where each stripe formed from a plurality of parallel scan paths (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A). Hoebel discloses wherein a stripe of the plurality of stripes straddles at least two of the parallel sections, the method determining regions by dividing the stripe into sub-regions based upon the parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided as Hoebel discloses orienting the scan paths in directions that shifted by 90°, Hoebel is disclosing where there is a determination when the scan paths straddle at least two parallel sections in order to effect the change in orientation (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A) and where this is along a line parallel with the scan paths. Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]) meeting the claim limitation of assigning at least one scanner to direct a corresponding energy beam along the scan paths based upon the determination of sub regions.
As to claim 22, Hoebel discloses wherein the scan paths comprise a plurality of stripes as in Figs 3A and 3B there are rows of areas making up stripes (Hoebel, Figs. 3A and 3B and 4a). Hoebel discloses where each stripe formed from a plurality of parallel scan paths (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A). Hoebel discloses wherein a stripe of the plurality of stripes straddles at least two of the parallel sections, the method determining regions by dividing the stripe into sub-regions based upon the parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided as Hoebel discloses orienting the scan paths in directions that shifted by 90°, Hoebel is disclosing where there is a determination when the scan paths straddle at least two parallel sections in order to effect the change in orientation (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A).
As to claim 23, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the instant case, in a powder bed selective solidification process, wherein an object is formed in a layer-by-layer manner by forming layers of powder material across a build platform to form a powder bed and scanning at least one energy beam across the powder bed to consolidate powder material of the powder bed is merely an intended use of the method of planning scanning of scan paths and does not add to the structure of the claimed method.
Hoebel discloses receiving scan paths for the energy beam to scan to consolidate powder material in the selected areas and determining whether a one of the scan paths straddles at least two parallel sections into which the powder bed is divided (Hoebel, Figs 3A and 3B and 4a). Hoebel discloses using a chest board scanning strategy where the scan paths are organized in a plurality of rectangles with scan paths that run parallel to each other and where the checkerboard pattern is divided into regions of rows and columns of the squares where the regions make parallel sections without dividing a rectangle that straddles at least two of the parallel sections (Hoebel, paragraph [0058] and Figs. 3a, 3b, and 4a), meeting the claim limitation of the scan paths arranged in a chequerboard pattern comprising a plurality of rectangles, each rectangle formed from a plurality of scan paths that run parallel to each other; dividing the chequerboard pattern into regions based upon a division of the powder bed into parallel sections without dividing a rectangle that straddles at least two of the parallel sections. Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]) meeting the claim limitation of assigning the at least one scanner to direct a corresponding energy beam along the scan paths based upon the division of the chequerboard pattern.
As to claim 24, Hoebel discloses where the parallel sections run from one side of the powder bed to the opposite side of the powder bed (Hoebel, Figs 3A, 3B, 4A).
As to claims 26, 28 and 29, Hoebel discloses preparing a powder layer with a regular and uniform thickness (Hoebel, paragraph [0041]), meeting the limitation of forming layers of powder material across a build platform to form a powder bed. Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]), meeting the limitation of scanning at least one energy beam along scan paths across the powder bed to consolidate powder material of the powder bed in selected areas of each layer corresponding to the object. Hoebel discloses the scan paths are scanned in accordance with a plan determined by the method of claims 1, 21, and 23, see claims 1, 21, and 23 rejections above.
As to claim 27, Hoebel discloses preparing a powder layer with a regular and uniform thickness (Hoebel, paragraph [0041] ) and as a powder layer is being prepared, Hoebel is disclosing a layer formation device for forming layers of powder material across a build platform, meeting the claim limitations. Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]), meeting the limitation of at least one scanner for scanning at least one energy beam along scan paths across the powder bed to consolidate powder material of the powder bed in selected areas of each layer corresponding to the object as well as a controller configured to control the layer formation device and the at least one scanner. Hoebel discloses where the powder bed selective solidification process according to claim 26 is carried out, see claim 26 rejection above.
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 2-3, 15-16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0242400 A1 of Hoebel in view of DE 102007-040755 A1 with reference to the English translation of Jacob..
As to claims 2 and 25, Hoebel discloses preparing a powder layer with a regular and uniform thickness (Hoebel, paragraph [0041]). However, Hoebel does not explicitly disclose where a wiper is spreading powder by moving across the powder bed in a linear, wiper direction.
Jacob relates to the same field of endeavor of a laser sintering device (Jacob, paragraph [0001]). Jacob teaches where layers of powdered material are applied by means of multiple coaters (Jacob, paragraph [0028] and 8a, 8b, and 8c in Fig 1), reading upon a wiper as a coater is a known equivalent in the art as they both carry out the same process of distributing layers of powder across a powder bed. Jacob teaches that the use of multiple coaters allows for multiple layers of powder to be applied without having to return the coater to its starting position in between (Jacob, paragraph [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add multiple coaters as taught by Jacob into the method of planning scanning paths disclosed in Hoebel, thereby allows for multiple layers of powder to be applied without having to return the coater to its starting position in between (Jacob, paragraph [0007]).
Finally, as Hoebel discloses a square powder bed (Hoebel, Figs 3a, 3b, 4a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the parallel sections having a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the wiper direction as it would be obvious to have the wiper direction in either the X-axis or Y-axis thereby minimizing the size of the coater and making the powder application process more efficient.
As to claim 3, Hoebel discloses where the parallel sections have straight borders (Hoebel, Figs 3a, 3b, 4a).
As to claims 15 and 16, Jacob discloses where all three coaters 8a, 8b, 8c are at least partially located above container 1 and Jacob discloses where at least a portion of the scan paths are scheduled to be scanned when the wiper is moving over the powder bed and wherein the powder layers are spread across the powder bed with a wiper and scanning of the scan paths is scheduled such that, when the wiper is above a one of the parallel sections, scan paths located in other ones of the parallel sections are scheduled for scanning (Jacob, paragraph [0029] and Fig. 1).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0242400 A1 of Hoebel in view of US 2006/0108712 A1 of Mattes.
As to claims 17, 18, and 19, Hoebel discloses performing melting by scanning with an energy beam an area corresponding to a cross section of said component according to the three-dimensional model stored in the control unit (Hoebel, paragraph [0042]), however Hoebel does not explicitly disclose assigning a plurality of scanners to the scan paths based upon the determination, wherein different scanners are assigned to different scan paths.
Mattes relates to the same field of endeavor of layer-wise generative manufacturing of three-dimensional objects by selective solidification of a solidifiable building material (Mattes, abstract). Mattes teaches where several deflection units and/or lasers are arranged above the material application devices (Mattes, paragraph [0032]), meeting the limitation of a plurality of scanners. Mattes teaches where each deflection unit is assigned to a solidification region (Mattes, paragraph [0032]), meeting the limitation where wherein different scanners are assigned to different scan paths. Mattes discloses that this process raises productivity when manufacturing objects (Mattes, paragraph [0020]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add several lasers assigned to separate solidification regions as taught by Mattes into the method of planning scanning paths disclosed in Hoebel, thereby raising productivity when manufacturing objects (Mattes, paragraph [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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 at (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 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights