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 .
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.
(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, 4, 18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feldmann (US 2019/0299286).
Regarding claim 1, Feldmann discloses an additive manufacturing system (abstract, “ additive manufacturing systems”) comprising:
a build surface´(¶0004, “a build surface”);
a plurality of laser energy sources (¶0004, “ two or more laser energy sources”);
an optics assembly configured to direct laser energy from the plurality of laser energy sources toward the build surface to form a corresponding plurality of laser pixels on the build surface (¶0004, “ optics assembly constructed and arranged to shape the laser energy output from each optical fiber to form a rectangular laser energy pixel associated with each laser energy source”); and
at least one processer (¶0073, “Each independent laser energy source 1 is connected to a central control unit 4”) configured to:
identify one or more groups of contiguous viable laser pixels of the plurality of laser pixels (¶0047, “a line of incident laser energy consists of multiple individual laser energy pixels arranged adjacent to each other that can have their respective power levels individually controlled”, ¶0055, “individual pixels on the ends of the linear array can be selectively turned off or on to produce a line array with a shorter length or longer length in the long direction”);
select a group of the one or more groups of contiguous viable laser pixels (¶0055, “… all pixels except for a single pixel can be selectively turned off to obtain a single point pixel for fine feature profiling… the linear array can be broken into multiple smaller linear arrays in which the power density along each smaller linear array is the same”); and
form one or more parts on the build surface using the selected group of contiguous viable laser pixels (¶0004, “Each rectangular laser energy pixel has a substantially uniform power density, the rectangular laser energy pixels are arranged to form a linear array of laser energy pixels on the build surface with no spacing between adjacent laser energy pixels”).
Regarding claim 4, Feldmann discloses wherein the one or more groups of contiguous viable laser pixels is a plurality of groups of contiguous viable laser pixels (¶0055, “the linear array can be broken into multiple smaller linear arrays in which the power density along each smaller linear array is the same”).
Regarding claim 18, Feldmann discloses wherein the one or more groups of contiguous viable laser pixels is a plurality of groups of contiguous viable laser pixels (¶0055, “the linear array can be broken into multiple smaller linear arrays in which the power density along each smaller linear array is the same”).
Regarding claim 20, Feldmann discloses wherein the one or more groups of contiguous viable laser pixels include subdivided groups of a larger group of contiguous viable laser pixels (¶0055, “the linear array can be broken into multiple smaller linear arrays in which the power density along each smaller linear array is the same”).
Regarding claim 21, Feldmann discloses wherein the subdivided groups each contain a unique set of contiguous viable laser pixels (¶0055, “the linear array can be broken into multiple smaller linear arrays in which the power density along each smaller linear array is the same”).
Regarding claim 22, Feldmann discloses wherein at least two of the subdivided groups include a common laser pixel (¶0055, “the linear array can be broken into multiple smaller linear arrays in which the power density along each smaller linear array is the same”).
Regarding claim 23, Feldmann discloses wherein the selected group is one of the subdivided groups (¶0055, “the linear array can be broken into multiple smaller linear arrays in which the power density along each smaller linear array is the same”).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-6, 11-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann (US 2019/0299286) in view of Mattes (US 2021/0146624).
Regarding claim 2, Feldmann does not explicitly disclose but, Mattes teaches wherein the at least one processer is configured to identify one or more failed laser pixels of the plurality of laser pixels if present (¶0076, “ Deviations result, for example, from a different efficiency of individual laser arrays, from non-linearities or from the failure of individual lasers of a module. In extreme cases, a laser array may have failed completely, which is then detected by the measuring device”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the failure of lasers taught in Mattes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted measurements can largely be automatized as well as run sufficiently fast and at high frequency to avoid excessively long measurement times.
Regarding claim 3, further teaches Mattes teaches wherein the at least one processer is configured to identify the one or more groups based at least in part on the identified one or more failed laser pixels (¶0076, “ Deviations result, for example, from a different efficiency of individual laser arrays, from non-linearities or from the failure of individual lasers of a module. In extreme cases, a laser array may have failed completely, which is then detected by the measuring device”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the failure of lasers taught in Mattes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted measurements can largely be automatized as well as run sufficiently fast and at high frequency to avoid excessively long measurement times.
Regarding claim 5, Mattes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to form the one or more parts with a different group of the plurality of groups of contiguous viable laser pixels if a failed laser pixel in the selected group is identified during formation of the one or more parts (¶0076).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the failure of lasers taught in Mattes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted measurements can largely be automatized as well as run sufficiently fast and at high frequency to avoid excessively long measurement times.
Regarding claim 6, Mattes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the one or more failed laser pixels based at least in part on a failure signal received from one or more of the plurality of laser energy sources (¶0076).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the failure of lasers taught in Mattes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted measurements can largely be automatized as well as run sufficiently fast and at high frequency to avoid excessively long measurement times.
Regarding claim 11, Mattes further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the one or more failed laser pixels based at least in part on a proximity to other failed laser pixels (¶0074).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the failure of lasers taught in Mattes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted measurements can largely be automatized as well as run sufficiently fast and at high frequency to avoid excessively long measurement times.
Regarding claim 12, Mattes further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the one or more failed laser pixels based at least in part on an intensity of the one or more failed laser pixels (¶0076).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the failure of lasers taught in Mattes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted measurements can largely be automatized as well as run sufficiently fast and at high frequency to avoid excessively long measurement times.
Regarding claim 15, Mattes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the group of contiguous viable laser pixels based at least in part on failure data of the plurality of laser pixels (¶0076).
Regarding claim 16, Mattes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the group of contiguous viable laser pixels based at least in part on one or more process parameters associated with the selected group (¶0076).
Regarding claim 17, Mattes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the group based on a weighting of the one or more process parameters (¶0076).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann (US 2019/0299286) in view of Mattes (US 2021/0146624) and further in view of XU (CN 114137548 A).
Regarding claim 7, Feldmann does not explicitly disclose but, XU teaches further comprising a weld quality sensor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the one or more failed laser pixels based at least in part on a weld quality measurement of a calibration structure measured with the weld quality sensor (page 03, lines 24-31).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the quality sensor taught in XU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted dynamic range of the laser radar receiving end is improved, and the performance of the laser radar is improved.
Regarding claim 8, XU teaches wherein the weld quality sensor is a photosensitive detector (page 03, lines 24-31).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the quality sensor taught in XU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted dynamic range of the laser radar receiving end is improved, and the performance of the laser radar is improved.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann (US 2019/0299286) in view of Mattes (US 2021/0146624), XU (CN 114137548 A) and further in view of Rapoport (US 20180233420 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Feldmann does not explicitly disclose but, Rapoport teaches wherein the calibration structure is a tooling layer (¶0047).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the calibration taught in Rapoport with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted relatively quick, non-destructive and do not require RF device fabrication.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann (US 2019/0299286) in view of Mattes (US 2021/0146624), XU (CN 114137548 A) and further in view of TAKESHI (CN1680187A).
Regarding claim 10, Feldmann does not explicitly disclose but, TAKESHI teaches wherein the calibration structure is formed during a manufacturing process of the one of more parts (¶0090).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the calibration taught in Rapoport with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted relatively quick, non-destructive and do not require RF device fabrication.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann (US 2019/0299286) in view of Desmet (US 2017/0101496).
Regarding claim 13, Feldmann does not explicitly disclose but, Desmet teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the group of contiguous viable laser pixels based at least in part on a speed of a printing process (¶0100).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the speed of the printing process taught in Rapoport with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted relatively quick, non-destructive and do not require RF device fabrication.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann (US 2019/0299286) in view of TORII (JP 2011031552 A).
Regarding claim 14, Feldmann does not explicitly disclose but, TORII teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the group of contiguous viable laser pixels based at least in part on a number of redundant groups having an equal number of contiguous viable laser pixels (page 09, line 22-29).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additive manufacturing systems disclosed in Feldmann with the speed of the printing process taught in Rapoport with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the forming process by simultaneously scan and expose a photoconductor with a plurality of beams.
Regarding claim 19, TORII teaches wherein each group of the plurality of groups have an equal number of contiguous viable laser pixels (page 09, line 22-29).
Regarding claims 24 to 45, claims 24 to 45 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1-23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zediker (US 20200086388) discloses There is provided assemblies for combining a group of laser sources into a combined laser beam. There is further provided a blue diode laser array that combines the laser beams from an assembly of blue laser diodes. There are provided laser processing operations and applications using the combined blue laser beams from the laser diode arrays and modules (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667