DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1-19 are currently under review.
Claim 20 is withdrawn.
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 in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
Applicant’s arguments made on 8/25/2026 regarding the species restriction are persuasive and said species restriction has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The recitation of “received data” in claim 1 line 14 is repeated twice and should be omitted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 2017/0165792) alone or alternatively in view of either one of Vorontsov (US 2019/0009358) or Nelson et al. (US 2021/0260701).
Regarding claim 1, Buller et al. discloses a 3D printing system [abstract]; wherein said 3D printing system includes:
A first scanning energy beam source (121) which transforms and melts (ie. forms melt pool) the component [0077, 0156, 0162, 0165, fig.1]
A second tiling energy beam source (122) which also delivers energy to the component [0156, 0162, fig.1]
Sensing means for measuring temperature of the component [0069]
A computer controller which serves to sense temperature as stated above, followed by analyzing temperature variations over time (ie. first and second points in time) and performing control of the second tiling energy using said feedback, which would naturally include a consideration of a thermal history and performing control based on said thermal history [0059, 0069, 0157-0159]
Buller et al. further teaches that the 3D printing system can be applied to different known 3D printing systems including powder feed and direct metal laser sintering, which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to utilize a powder delivery device which directs powder to a melt pool [0142]. Alternatively, Buller et al. does not expressly teach a powder delivery device that directs a powder stream toward the melt pool as claimed. Vorontsov discloses that it is known to utilize multiple lasers to control 3D printing, said 3D printing being either powder bed printing, direct metal deposition, or other known types [abstract, 0032]. In other words, Vorontsov discloses that it is known to control laser processing in both powder bed systems (as taught by Buller et al.) and direct metal deposition systems as claimed, such that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute a direct metal deposition system for the system of Buller et al. because these 3D printing systems are disclosed by Vorontsov to be art-recognized equivalents. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) & MPEP 2144.06. Alternatively, Nelson et al. discloses that it is known to utilize directed energy deposition for forming/repairing components with additive manufacturing wherein microstructural and geometric requirements may be met by controlling focus and shape of directed energy deposition [0003-0004, 0014]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Buller et al. by utilizing directed energy deposition to achieve desirable microstructural and geometric requirements as taught by Nelson et al. The examiner notes that Nelson et al. clearly depicts a powder delivery device which directs powder to a melt pool [fig.1-2].
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. further discloses a substrate (109) (ie. stage) which supports the component, wherein the component is not disclosed to be moved during processing [fig.1]. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would understand that the component is not removed from the stage as claimed. Nelson et al. further teaches forming the component on the substrate (26), such that the prior art combination suggests forming the component on the substrate (as taught by Nelson et al.) wherein further temperature sensing is performed during process (as taught by Buller et al.)[0026, fig.1-2].
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches sensing temperature variations over time as stated above, wherein a cooling rate of the melt pool can then be desirably controlled [0221]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that achieving desired control of a cooling rate would naturally entail calculation/determination of said cooling rate in order to determine whether said cooling rate was desirable or not.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the limitations of claim 4 pertain to the material worked upon by the claimed system, which merely imparts a system structure that is capable of achieving tailored properties as claimed. See MPEP 2115. The examiner notes that the laser processing control of Buller et al. would be entirely capable of achieving tailored, local properties as claimed. Nonetheless, Buller et al. further expressly teaches locally controlling microstructure of the component [0154, 0289, 0347].
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the prior art combination would suggest a powder feed head and axis that is integral with the scanning melting laser of Buller et al., which meets the limitation of a first energy device coincident with the axis of the deposition head. Buller et al. further depicts embodiments wherein the tiling laser and scanning laser are not coincident with each other, which meets the claimed features [fig.1].
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 4 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches controlling/changing cooling rate as desired to form different microstructures [0078, 0154, 0162-0163].
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches that the first and second energy beams are lasers [0041, 0161, 02026, fig.1].
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. does not expressly teach a third energy source as claimed. However, the examiner notes that this limitation merely recites another energy source, which one of ordinary skill would recognize to be a mere duplication of parts which is prima facie obvious absent evidence of a patentably distinct result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claims 10-11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches that the controlled cooling (ie. with the second energy source) can occur before, during, and/or after laser irradiation (ie. with the first energy source) [0069, 0162-0163].
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 4 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches sensing temperature variations over time as stated above, wherein a cooling rate of the melt pool can then be desirably controlled with the laser to control a desired solidification rate [0163]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that achieving desired control of a solidification rate would naturally entail calculation/determination of said solidification rate in order to determine whether said solidification rate was desirable or not.
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches controlling the laser as stated above, wherein laser parameters to be adjusted include power density, scanning speed, etc. [0012, 0030, 0069, 0159].
Regarding claims 14-15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches monitoring the desired microstructure using microscopy or a non-contact method, which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to include x-ray imaging, ultrasound, or acoustic monitoring as claimed [0325]. Nonetheless, Buller et al. also expressly teaches x-ray microscopy [0324].
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Buller et al. further teaches a cooling member such as a heat sink for controlled cooling [0069, 0244]. The examiner notes that a cooling member for the purpose of controlled cooling as taught by Buller et al. would naturally be controlled by the computer control of Buller et al.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 2017/0165792) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Craig et al. (US 2017/0151628).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach calculation of a cooling rate as claimed. Craig et al. discloses temperature control/sensing for controlling melt pools during additive manufacturing wherein measurement of temperature as a function of time allows for determination (ie. calculation) of cooling rate [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by determining cooling rate to control melt pool parameters during additive manufacturing as taught by Craig et al.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 2017/0165792) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mann et al. (2019, New sensor and system technology for higher process stability in LMD) alone or alternatively further in view of Lalande et al. (US 2024/0109245).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach mass sensors as claimed. Mann et al. discloses providing a laser material deposition head with a powder feed measurement system in order to determine powder feed into the melt pool because this is a factor of crucial importance [abstract]. The measurement system of Mann et al. includes a laser illumination device to illuminate the powder feed, in addition to an optical camera system (ie. imaging device) along a plane of the deposition axis which monitors the number of powder particles and calculates a powder flow rate [p.2-3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by including the powder feed measurement system of Mann et al. for the aforementioned benefit.
The prior art combination does not expressly teach a plurality of sensors as claimed. However, the examiner notes that this limitation merely recites another sensor, which one of ordinary skill would recognize to be a mere duplication of parts which is prima facie obvious absent evidence of a patentably distinct result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Alternatively, Lalande et al. discloses that it is known to utilize multiple sensors, detectors, and cameras for monitoring additive manufacturing process variables in multiple locations [0017]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing a plurality of powder feed sensors to monitoring conditions in multiple locations as taught by Lalande et al.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 2017/0165792) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 2024/0100600).
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach first and second energy beam orientations as claimed. Thomas discloses a direct metal deposition additive manufacturing system [abstract, fig.1]; wherein a first laser (108) is coincident with a deposition head and powder feed (110, 102) and a second energy source for locally controlling microstructure trailing and offset from an axis of the deposition head and powder feed for subsequent control of microstructure after melting [0037-0039, fig.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the system orientation of Thomas for desirably controlling microstructure in localized locations [0037-0039].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 2017/0165792) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (2007, Measurement of mass flow rate of particulate solids in gravity chute conveyor based on laser sensing array).
Regarding claim 18, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a topology sensor to measure powder mass as claimed. Zheng et al. discloses measuring mass flow rate of powders to provide control of industrial processes and achieve desired quality [p.298]; wherein said measuring includes utilizing a laser sensor array to determine powder shape (ie. topology sensor) and calculate mass flow rate based on known powder density [p.299-301]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the measurement system of Zheng et al. for the powder feed material deposited to the melt pool of the aforementioned prior art in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Zheng et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 2017/0165792) and others as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Colin et al. (US 2015/0298259).
Regarding claim 19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach calculating a capture efficiency as claimed. Colin et al. discloses optimizing direct metal deposition by improving melting mass efficiency during additive manufacturing, wherein melting mass efficiency is calculated as the ratio of an amount of material forming the part (ie. mass of powder added to melt pool) to an amount of material projected from the nozzle (ie. mas of powder leaving the powder delivery device) [0048-0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by determining a melting mass efficiency as taught by Colin et al. in order to optimize direct metal deposition as stated above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/593,438 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,708,940 in view of the above prior art. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference between the instant claims and patented claims is that the patented claims are directed to measuring residual stresses rather than temperatures. However, it would have been obvious to measure temperature as explained in the above rejections.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights