CTNF 18/566,252 CTNF 92967 DETAILED ACTION Claims 11-21 are pending and currently under review. Claims 1-10 are cancelled. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-30 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification merely on p.1 include, but are not limited to : On p.1: “…nearly net formation without die…” should be corrected to recite “…nearly net formation without a die…” or “…nearly net formation without die s …” On p.1: “…the surface of parts is likely to have prone to uneven defects” is grammatically incorrect. On p.1: “In the prior art, some document states that…” is not clear, concise, nor exact. Claim Objections Similar to the above specification objections, the instant claims are replete with syntax and/or grammatical errors. The claims should be revised carefully to correct these deficiencies. For example, claim 12 recites “negative defocus” twice, which requires appropriate correction. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The term “height” is interpreted to refer to a displacement between the laser cladding head and the substrate as recited in claim 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 11-21 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 11 recites that in S1 “other process parameters of the forming device by laser melting are the same”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what is meant by “the same”. It is unclear whether “same” means that the parameters are the same value as each other, the same value as used in previous pass experiments, the same as a predetermined control value, or something else entirely. Claim 11 recites that in S5 “one that is less than zero… and has a smallest absolute value corresponding to a second value that is a value of the defocus amount”, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the value of the defocus amount is the second value or whether the value of the defocus amount is the one that is less than zero and has a smallest absolute value. Claim 11 recites that in S5 “to achieve the optimal self-healing effect”, which is unclear because “optimal” is a qualitative, relative term which is not further defined by the claims or specification. It is further unclear as to what quantitative, physical parameters are required by the term “self-healing”. Claim 11 recites that in S6 that an initial distance between the focusing point and substrate is adjusted “based on the value of the defocus amount”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what actual adjustment is required by this limitation. It is unclear whether the claimed adjustment refers to making the initial distance match the defocus amount, or some other entirely arbitrary difference. Claims 13-14 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 13-14 recite that the height is “measured by metallographic method”. It is unclear to the examiner as to what “metallographic method” means. This is not a commonly used term in the art of metallurgy, and the specification and claims do not provide any further explanation. It is unclear whether “metallographic method” merely requires any means of visual analysis, or whether a particular microscope and preparation method is required. Claims 15-17 and 19-20 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 15-17 and 19-20 recite “the method as claimed in any one of claim 11”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether these claims are dependent only upon claim 11, or whether these claims are meant to be multiple dependent claims that are dependent upon other claims. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites that the functional relationship recited in claim 11 is established by polynomial fitting. However, independent claim 11 already recites limitations pertaining to polynomial fitting, such that claim 20 does not further limit the scope of claim 11 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Wijn et al. (US 2020/0215760) discloses calibrating a laser additive manufacturing apparatus by adjusting a focus of the laser and obtaining a calibrated laser focus based on the different focus adjustments made. However, this reference does not teach polynomial fitting or controlling a print head height as claimed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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. /NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/566,252 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/566,252 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/566,252 Page 4 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/566,252 Page 5 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/566,252 Page 6 Art Unit: 1734