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 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description for FIG 3A: Br. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the symbol “r” in FIG. 3B is designated as “R” in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are as originally filed, Claims 11-20 are canceled, and Claims 21-30 are new.
Claim Interpretation
Claim
Means for or Step for
Functional Language
Structure or Material
Disclosure Support
21
n/a
“operable to direct”
“energy beams”
“energy beam system” [0017]
21
n/a
“operably coupled”
“energy beam system”
“controller”; [0014]
21
n/a
“operate”
“the energy beam system in a continuous wave mode”
no support for “non-transitory machine-readable instructions”
“the energy beam system in a pulsed mode”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claim 21, the limitation “non-transitory machine-readable instructions” is not supported by the specification. The examiner notes that the specification at [0061] is a copy of the claims as originally filed and contains this language in #16. However, the specification does not identify this limitation.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 3, 7-9, 21-25, 29, and 30 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.
Claim 3 recites “when incident on the powder in the second region” in lines 1 and 2. It is not clear what is meant by “incident on the powder.”
Claim 7 recites “a pulse width between 3.2 ms and 6.4 ms” in lines 2 and 3. However, in line 2, “ms” is used to designate microseconds for the pulse period. It is not clear how “ms” can be used to measure pulse period (time) and width.
Claim 8 recites “first region and the second region are on individual one of the plurality of layers” lines 2 and 3. Not clear if “on individual one” should be “individually on one,” “on one,” or something else.
Claim 8 recites “for each other individual layer” in line 3. It is not clear how this limitation relates to the plurality of layers.
Claim limitation “non-transitory machine-readable instructions” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the above table. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 24 recites “a different layer” in line 2. It is not clear to which layers the “different layer” is compared.
Claim 29 recites “a different layer” in line 2. It is not clear to which layers the “different layer” is compared.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that.”
The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are shown above in the table.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heitmann et al (US 2024/0051024 A1).
Heitmann et al teaches powder-bed-based additive manufacturing of a component as represented in FIGs 1-4 of the patent document. Continuous wave mode and the pulsed irradiation mode are combined [0020] with a laser beam or an electron beam [0022]. In FIG 4, the vectors Vh represent continuous irradiation [0052], and the first energy beam and vectors pw represent pulsed irradiation mode [0048] and the second energy beam. The location of the vectors Vh represent a first region the location of vectors pw represents the second region. Each layer is selectively irradiated [0016]. Component 10 is represented in FIG 1. The control device [0026] reads on a planned exposure pattern. Additive manufacturing is also known as selective laser sintering [0006]. See also FIG 2. Heitmann et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, pw in FIG 4 represents a plurality of target spots that are spaced apart.
Regarding Claim 3, pw is less than the radius or longest half-distance of the spot profile as in FIG 4.
Regarding Claim 4, the pulse frequency [0048] reads on at least one pulse at pw.
Regarding Claim 5, FIG 4 demonstrates at least two lines of a plurality of target spots at pw.
Regarding Claim 6, there is one irradiation device 2 in FIG 1 with the ability to select pulsed mode or continuous mode [0020].
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heitmann et al.
Heitmann et al teaches powder-bed-based additive manufacturing as represented below in the annotated drawings:
PNG
media_image1.png
748
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
401
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Vectors pw are closer to the horizontal edges than vectors Vh. Heitmann et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 22, the pulse frequency [0048] reads on at least one pulse at pw, which reads on target spots.
Regarding Claim 23, the continuous and pulsed beams are from the same source 2.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heitmann et al.
Heitmann et al teaches powder-bed-based additive manufacturing of a component as represented in FIGs 1-4 of the patent document. Continuous wave mode and the pulsed irradiation mode are combined [0020] with a laser beam or an electron beam [0022] In FIG 4, the vectors Vh represent continuous irradiation [0052], and the first energy beam and vectors pw represent pulsed irradiation mode [0048] and the second energy beam. In FIGs 3 and 4, the sections A-A and B-B are also represented in FIG 2, which demonstrates the two regions at different layers. Additive manufacturing is also known as selective laser sintering [0006]. Heitmann et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 27, pw in FIG 4 represents a plurality of target spots that are spaced apart.
Regarding Claim 28, the continuous and pulsed beams are from the same source.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/244832 A1 based on the machine translation and original document.
WO 2020/244832 A1 (WO ‘832) teaches a method for selective irradiation and controller for additive manufacturing as represented below in the annotated drawing of Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
435
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The additive manufacturing is for a powder bed [0003], which reads on a build object. Sections 1, 2, and 3 represents the first region, and sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H represents the claimed second region. The contour sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H read on an edge. WO ‘832 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the exposure pattern is represented above in the annotated drawing for the second beam by a “planned distance” along the perimeter of the material.
Regarding Claim 3, the second beam unit is directed to a plurality of target locations A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H that are spaced apart equidistant and on the perimeter of the material. WO ‘832 does not teach a radius but teaches a length on each side that would represent at least equal to half of the width or length.
Regarding Claim 4, the second beam unit is preferably configured to irradiate the material layer along contour vectors in pulsed wave aperture [0014].
Regarding Claim 5, two lines are represented by at least two contours as represented above in the annotated drawing.
Regarding Claim 8, the central region reads on sections 1, 2, and 3. The peripheral regional reads on sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. The layer thickness provides overhanging regions of structures to be built up [0049].
Regarding Claim 9, WO ‘832 does not teach a support structure.
Regarding Claim 10, the first beam generator is S1 and the second beam generator is S2.
Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO ‘832.
WO ‘832 teaches a system for selection irradiation and a controller for additive manufacturing as represented above in the annotated drawing. The energy beam system is represented by S1 and S2. The controller is 100 [0062]. The limitation of “non-transitory machine-readable instructions” is not described in the specification and is interpreted as being able to perform the function described in the claim. WO ‘832 teaches S1 is a continuous wave unit and scans the material layer [0014]. The material is sintered [0005]. S2 is a pulsed beam unit and directs pulses around the perimeter of the material layer, which reads on an edge. WO ‘832 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 22, the second beam unit is directed to a plurality of target locations
Regarding Claim 24, the system of WO ‘832 is capable sintering powder in a “central region” with a continuous beam that is separate from the edge. The system of WO ‘832 is also capable of sintering powder in a peripheral region or edge using pulsed mode. The “different region” is taught by the overhanging regions [0049]. The second region is offset as represented in Figure 1 and teaches at least lateral offsets.
Regarding Claim 25, WO ‘832 does not teach a support structure. WO ‘832 is capable of sintering without forming.
Claims 26, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO ‘832.
WO ‘832 teaches a method for selective irradiation and controller for additive manufacturing as represented above in the annotated drawing. The additive manufacturing is for a powder bed [0003], which reads on a build object. Sections 1, 2, and 3 represents the first region, and sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H represents the claimed second region. The contour sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H read on an edge. WO ‘832 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 27, the sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H read on a plurality of target spots.
Regarding Claim 29, WO ‘832 teaches sintering powder in a “central region” with a continuous beam that is separate from the edge and sintering powder in a peripheral region or edge using pulsed mode. The “layer having a footprint at least partially offset” is taught by the overhanging regions [0049] in Figure 1.
Regarding Claim 30, WO ‘832 does not teach a support structure.
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitmann et al as applied to claim 1 above.
Heitmann et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Heitmann et al teaches the pulse frequency is above 3kH with a scanning speed above 230 mm/s with irradiation vectors between 1 mm and 2 mm [0019]. The pulsed mode can be from or above 1 mm [0020]. However, Heitmann et al does not teach the pulse period or a pulse width in microseconds as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the teachings of Heitmann et al to read on the claimed pulse period and pulse width as claimed, since a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B. In this case, Heitmann et al can perform the claimed functions to operate an energy beam system in a continuous wave mode and a pulsed mode as recited in Claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘832 as applied to claim 1 above.
WO ‘832 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. WO ‘832 teaches the pulse range is short-pulse: the range of milliseconds to nanoseconds [0030] includes the range of microseconds. However, WO ‘832 does not teach the pulse period or a pulse width in microseconds as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the teachings of Heitmann et al to read on the claimed pulse period and pulse width as claimed, since a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B. In this case, WO ‘832 can perform the claimed functions to operate an energy beam system in a continuous wave mode and a pulsed mode as recited in Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al (US 2020/0238566 A1) teaches using pulsed electron beam for electron beam cutting [0060]. CN 115213429 A teaches a three-dimensional molding technology with pulsed subtractive processing [0003]. Burbaum et al (10,646,956 B2) teaches producing a component by successive solidification of individual layers of powdered, granular, or liquid material by irradiation with each layer being divided into an inner region and an edge region (column 1, lines 17-21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 3:00 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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights