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 § 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.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thermal camera". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8-14 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 7.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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 1-5, 15, 17-18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shiraishi et al. (US 20200298473 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shiraishi teaches “a method of fabricating a three-dimensional object” (which reads upon “a method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Shiraishi teaches “a thin layer forming section that forms, on the build stage, a thin layer of the powder material containing the powder particles” (which reads upon “depositing a layer of powder on a build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0035]). Shiraishi teaches “forming an object layer by selectively irradiating the preheated thin layer with a laser beam to fuse the powder particles contained in the powder material” (which reads upon “fusing the layer, wherein the fusing comprises applying an energy source to the deposited layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Shiraishi teaches “laminating a plurality of the object layers by repeating the forming of the thin layer, the preheating, and the forming of the object layer in this order a plurality of times” (which reads upon “iteratively repeating the depositing and the fusing layers to build one or more parts”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0029]). Shiraishi teaches that “the three-dimensional fabrication apparatus may further include temperature measuring instrument 235 that measures a temperature in a region where an object layer is to be formed on the surface of the thin layer formed on build stage 210” (which reads upon “measuring interlayer temperature (ILT) of at least one region of the one or more parts prior to the fusing of each successive layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0116]). Shiraishi teaches that “Temperature measuring instrument 235 may be any instrument that enables noncontact measurement of a surface temperature in a region where the object layer is to be formed, and may be an IR sensor or an optical pyrometer” (paragraph [0121]). Shiraishi teaches that “Control section 260 may receive, from temperature measuring instrument 235, temperature information on a region where an object layer is to be formed on the surface of a thin layer, and control heating by preheating section 230 such that a difference between a temperature in the region where an object layer is to be formed and the temperature TC(6.5) at which a storage modulus G′ of a material for the core resin becomes 1×106.5 Pa is 5° C. or more and 50° C. or less, and preferably 5° C. or more and 30° C. or less” (which reads upon “monitoring the measured interlayer temperatures (ILTs) to detect one or more anomalies; adjusting parameters of the depositing and the fusing upon detecting the one or more anomalies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 2, Shiraishi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Shiraishi teaches that “the powder material supplied from a powder supply section is spread evenly on a build stage by a recoater” (paragraph [0101]). Shiraishi teaches “laminating a plurality of the object layers by repeating the forming of the thin layer, the preheating, and the forming of the object layer in this order a plurality of times” (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Shiraishi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Shiraishi teaches that “Afterwards, stage support section 250 drives a motor and a driving mechanism (neither shown) according to position control information, which is output from control section 260, to move build stage 210 downward in the vertical direction (arrow direction in FIG. 2) by a lamination pitch” (paragraph [0136]). Shiraishi teaches that “the thickness of the slice data, i.e., the thickness of the object layer, agrees with a distance corresponding to the thickness of one object layer (lamination pitch)” (paragraph [0125]). Shiraishi teaches that “the thickness of the thin layer is set to be the same as the thickness of an object layer” (paragraph [0102]). Shiraishi teaches that “Although the thickness of the thin layer may optionally be set corresponding to the accuracy of a three-dimensional object to be fabricated, it is typically 0.01 mm or more and 0.30 mm or less” (paragraph [0102]; 10-300 micrometers). Shiraishi teaches that “Powder materials 1 to 11 were each spread on a build stage, which was placed inside a large electric furnace, to form a 0.1 mm-thick thin layer” (paragraph [0172]; 100 micrometers).
Regarding claim 5, Shiraishi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Shiraishi teaches that “Display section 270 shows, as needed, various information and/or messages to be recognized by a user under control of control section 260, and that operation section 275 receives various input operations by a user and outputs operation signals corresponding to the input operations to control section” (paragraph [0137]). Shiraishi teaches that “a virtual three-dimensional object to be formed may be shown in display section 270 to confirm whether a desired shape is formed, and corrections may be added from operation section 275 if a desired shape is not formed” (paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 15, Shiraishi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Shiraishi teaches that “Laser irradiation section 240 includes laser source 241 and galvano mirror” (paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 23-24, Shiraishi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Shiraishi teaches that “a difference between a surface temperature of the preheated thin layer and the above-mentioned standby temperature (temperature at which a storage modulus G′ of a material for the core resin becomes 1×106.5 Pa) is preferably 5° C. or more and 50° C. or less, and more preferably 5° C. or more and 30° C. or less” (paragraph [0104]; setting a high and low threshold (window)). Shiraishi teaches that “Control section 260 may receive, from temperature measuring instrument 235, temperature information on a region where an object layer is to be formed on the surface of a thin layer, and control heating by preheating section 230 such that a difference between a temperature in the region where an object layer is to be formed and the temperature TC(6.5) at which a storage modulus G′ of a material for the core resin becomes 1×106.5 Pa is 5° C. or more and 50° C. or less, and preferably 5° C. or more and 30° C. or less” (paragraph [0139]).
Claims 1-3, 6, 17-18, 21-23, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dorini et al. (US 20240157632 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dorini teaches “methods for the layer-by-layer formation of three-dimensional (3D) objects” (which reads upon “a method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Dorini teaches that “the dosing device 42 doses a fresh pile of powder to the work surface 13, and the powder distributor 36, here shown as a roller 36, is moved across the work surface 13 by moving the second carriage 30_2 in the first direction and across the build bed 16, and that in doing so it pushes ahead of it the pile of powder while spreading a fresh layer across the build bed 16, forming a new build bed surface, or build area” (which reads upon “depositing a layer of powder on a build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0029]). Dorini teaches “operating the first radiation source L1 to apply fusing energy to the build area to fuse the regions of powder where the absorber has been deposited” (which reads upon “fusing the layer, wherein the fusing comprises applying an energy source to the deposited layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Dorini teaches “wherein the layer sequence is repeated to form each layer of the object until the object is complete” (which reads upon “iteratively repeating the depositing and the fusing layers to build one or more parts”, as recited in the instant claim; claim 1). Dorini teaches that “the temperature profile on the build area 12 may be monitored layer-by-layer by a thermal sensor such as a thermal camera 70 during the process of manufacturing the object” (which reads upon “measuring interlayer temperature (ILT) of at least one region of the one or more parts prior to the fusing of each successive layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0035]). Dorini teaches that “the controller 200 may generally be arranged to receive thermal information generated by a sensor (such as a thermal camera 70) monitoring the temperature of the build area 12, and to adjust an energy output of the first and/or second radiation source during its movement in the first direction based on the thermal information, such that one or more of the energy outputs of the first radiation source L1 and the second radiation source L2 is based on thermal feedback of the build area 12” (which reads upon “monitoring the measured interlayer temperatures (ILTs) to detect one or more anomalies; adjusting parameters of the depositing and the fusing upon detecting the one or more anomalies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0208]). Dorini teaches that “thermal variations along the first direction may optionally be corrected by accordingly adjusting the energy output of at least one of the first and/or second radiation sources L1, L2 and/or the first and second velocity profiles” (which reads upon “adjusting parameters of the depositing and the fusing upon detecting the one or more anomalies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0237]).
Regarding claim 2, Dorini teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Dorini teaches that “the dosing device 42 is here exemplified in the form of a rotating blade” (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Dorini teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Dorini teaches that “Note that neither the step of lowering the build bed 16 before the return pass of the carriages 30_1, 30_2 from Position 2 to Position 1 (as shown in the flow chart in FIG. 5 ), nor the step of dosing powder to the work surface 13 ahead of initiating the movement of the second carriage 30_2, is described” (paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 6, Dorini teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Dorini teaches that “the temperature profile on the build area 12 may be monitored layer-by-layer by a thermal sensor such as a thermal camera 70 during the process of manufacturing the object” (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claims 17-18, 21-23, 27-28, Dorini teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Dorini teaches that “Within the same layer, therefore, for a plurality of locations along the first direction, variations in the thermal cycle may be reduced or compensated for between a plurality of locations positioned at least along the first direction on the build area by controlling the time interval Δt” (paragraph [0043]). Dorini teaches that “the time interval may be controlled in combination with considerations of temperature levels of the fused regions between fusing and distributing the fresh layer” (which reads instant claims 21 and 27; paragraph [0067]). Dorini teaches that “if the build area is hotter at locations towards the end of a pass of the first radiation source compared to elsewhere along the first direction, it might be beneficial to increase at least the first velocity v1 towards the end of the pass of the first radiation source L1 so that the first radiation source has less time t0 provide fusing energy to those locations near the end of the pass in the first direction” (which reads upon “wherein the one or more anomalies comprises an anomalous increase in the measured ILTs”, as recited in instant claim 17; paragraph [0079]). Dorini teaches that “This might for example mean that the temperature achieved above the melting point for those locations” (which reads upon “wherein the anomalous increase comprises a measured ILT exceeding a threshold value”, as recited in instant claim 18; paragraph [0079]). Dorini teaches that “local fluctuations in temperature on the build bed 16 may lead to poor uniformity in part quality” (paragraph [0204]). Dorini teaches that “a thermal variation may exist along the first direction across the build area 12, and that such a thermal variation along the first direction over the build area 12 may be reduced or prevented by adjusting the energy output, e.g. by adjusting the duty cycle, of the moveable radiation sources described herein” (which reads on claims 17, 22-23, and 28; paragraph [0204]). Dorini teaches that “the controller 200 may generally be arranged to receive thermal information generated by a sensor (such as a thermal camera 70) monitoring the temperature of the build area 12, and to adjust an energy output of the first and/or second radiation source during its movement in the first direction based on the thermal information, such that one or more of the energy outputs of the first radiation source L1 and the second radiation source L2 is based on thermal feedback of the build area 12” (paragraph [0208]).
Claims 1, 6-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dorini et al. (US 20230082932 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dorini teaches “a method of operation for an apparatus for the manufacture of three-dimensional (3D) objects using a thermal sensor to control the thermal cycle of the process” (which reads upon “a method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Dorini teaches “distributing a layer of particulate material over a build area, the layer providing a build bed surface of the build area” (which reads upon “depositing a layer of powder on a build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Dorini teaches that “if the combination of absorber and power input to the heat source L1 (causing a certain energy input to the region 50) is sufficient, the particulate material of region 50 melts, or sinters, to fuse or consolidate and form a region of consolidated particulate material” (which reads upon “fusing the layer, wherein the fusing comprises applying an energy source to the deposited layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0020]). Dorini teaches “wherein the layer cycle of steps (i) to (iv) is repeated a number of times until the calibration process and the build process are complete” (which reads upon “iteratively repeating the depositing and the fusing layers to build one or more parts”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Dorini teaches that “to adequately control the temperature of the build bed surface 12 during the layer cycle, the build bed surface 12 may generally be monitored by a thermal sensor” (which reads upon “measuring interlayer temperature (ILT) of at least one region of the one or more parts prior to the fusing of each successive layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0021]). Dorini teaches that “in the case of the first heat source L1, the measured temperature profiles may be measured temperature profiles at least following the step at block 112 of heating with the first heat source L1 (“post-fuse temperature measurements”), and are compared against a pre-defined fusing temperature of the layer-specific region” (which reads upon “monitoring the measured interlayer temperatures (ILTs) to detect one or more anomalies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0076]). Dorini teaches that “based on a determined deviation between a measured post-fuse temperature and a predefined fusing temperature, the build process may further comprise operating the first heat source L1 in response to the measured post-fuse temperature profiles to heat each further layer-specific region to the predefined fusing temperature” (which reads upon “adjusting parameters of the depositing and the fusing upon detecting the one or more anomalies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0076]). Dorini teaches that “deviations from the predefined fusing temperature may be due to local variations in thermal mass within the build bed, as a result of the shape of the object or the location of the object, for example” (paragraph [0076]). Dorini teaches that “the the third (further) heat source 20 and/or the first heat source L1 and/or the second heat source L2 may be operated based on a measured temperature of the layer following the step of heating at block 106 and 206 and/or after the step of heating at block 112 and 212, a temperature of the layer using the array of individual sensor pixels; wherein a zonal temperature is determined for each of a plurality of zones of the build bed surface as measured by a subset of the array of sensor pixels; and a zonal temperature difference is determined between each determined zonal temperature and the target layer temperature T3 (target)” (which reads upon “adjusting parameters of the depositing and the fusing upon detecting the one or more anomalies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0071]). Dorini teaches that “to achieve melting of the layer-specific region 50, the layer cycle 300 of a calibration routine for the thermal sensor 72 may be repeated at least until the particulate material within the layer-specific region 50 starts to melt, wherein the step of depositing absorption modifier comprises depositing for each further layer a different amount of absorption modifier compared to the previous layer so as to cause the particulate material of the layer-specific region 50 to absorb more energy from the first heat source L1 than that of the preceding layer” (which reads upon “adjusting parameters of the depositing and the fusing upon detecting the one or more anomalies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claims 6-9 and 14, Dorini teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Dorini teaches that “the thermal sensor 72 may be centrally mounted in the form of a thermal camera or a pyrometer within the area of the overhead heater 20, or it may be provided on one or both of the carriages in the form of a thermal line scan sensor” (paragraph [0021]; claim 6). Dorini teaches that “a further calibration routine may comprise aligning the thermal sensor with respect to the build bed surface 12, and/or to correct for thermal image distortions” (paragraph [0072], claim 7). Dorini teaches that “an alignment calibration routine may comprise the layer cycle steps 300, wherein absorption modifier in the form of radiation absorber is deposited at block 110 over a plurality of areas 500_n comprised within the layer-specific region 50 of the build bed surface 12; and/or wherein absorption modifier in the form of absorption inhibitor is deposited over a surrounding area surrounding the plurality of areas 500_n” (paragraph [0072]; claim 8). Dorini teaches that “furthermore, the step (iv) of the layer cycle of the alignment calibration routine comprises measuring the temperature of the build bed surface 12 after the step (iii) of heating” (paragraph [0072]; claim 9). Dorini teaches that “this may comprise detecting the position of the areas 500_n and comparing them to an expected position based on the bitmap that is used to control the deposition of the absorption modifier; furthermore, a calibration outcome in the form of an alignment correction of the thermal image with respect to the location of the build bed surface 12 and/or a distortion correction of the thermal image for each pixel of the thermal image is determined, based on the measured temperatures by the thermal sensor 72” (paragraph [0072]; distortion correction reads on claim 14). Dorini teaches that “the alignment correction and/or a distortion correction is applied to subsequent measurements by the thermal sensor at step (iv) for any subsequent layers, for example before starting calibration routines for the one or more heat sources and for the set point of the thermal sensor” (paragraph [0072]; claim 14).
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorini et al. (US 20240157632 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cole et al. (WO 2023076636 A1).
Regarding claims 7-13, Dorini teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Dorini teaches that “the temperature profile on the build area 12 may be monitored layer-by-layer by a thermal sensor such as a thermal camera 70 during the process of manufacturing the object” (paragraph [0035]).
Dorini is silent regarding calibrating the thermal camera and the details thereof.
Cole is similarly concerned with improvements to additive manufacturing processes (paragraph [0003]). Cole teaches that “FIG. 2 depicts one type of defect that is caused by a phenomenon known as lack of fusion (LOF). Although the defects in FIG. 2 are taken from an LPBF part, LOF also appears in DED, and as the name suggests, it occurs when the laser power is too low or the scan speed is too high, which results in incomplete melting of the metal powder particles” (paragraph [0046]). Cole teaches that “the additive manufacturing build was created on an open architecture LPBF system at Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, Ohio, and that a long wave infrared (LWIR) thermal camera was placed off-axis with an angle about 80° to the horizontal” (paragraph [0132]). Cole teaches that “the camera was calibrated according to a black-body technique” (which reads upon instant claims 7-8; paragraph [0132]). Cole teaches that “this calibration technique enabled the thermal camera to accurately measure top surface temperatures up to 550°C” (which reads upon instant claims 9-10; paragraph [0132]). Cole teaches that “Another calibration step is to determine the correct level of heat loss for the simulation” (paragraph [0139]). Cole teaches that “To do this, the SG model was applied to inverted-cone geometry C40, with the larger overhang, and end-of-cycle temperatures were compared to data from the experimental build” (which reads upon instant claims 11-12; paragraph [0139]; data from the experimental build reads on heating and measuring the build plate). Cole teaches that “the build plate on which the part is built, the primary heat sink in the problem, was modeled as a large convection coefficient” (which reads upon instant claim 13; paragraph [0139]; build plate must be measured as part of the calibration). Cole teaches that “To choose the heat-loss coefficient, the error (SMAPE) between the SG model for the C40 part and the end-of-cycle temperature obtained from the LWIR thermal camera was minimized” (paragraph [0139]). Cole teaches that “Validation of the improved spectral graph method was carried out by comparison with experimental temperatures from infrared camera data obtained during a test build with the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process” (paragraph [0131]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dorini to include calibration of the thermal camera, as taught by Cole to improve the accuracy of the thermal camera and avoid heat related defects, such as LOF.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorini et al. (US 20240157632 A1) and Cole et al. (WO 2023076636 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20160224017 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dorini teaches the method of claim 8 as stated above. Cole teaches that “the camera was calibrated according to a black-body technique” (paragraph [0132]). Cole teaches that “Validation of the improved spectral graph method was carried out by comparison with experimental temperatures from infrared camera data obtained during a test build with the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process” (paragraph [0131]).
Modified Dorini is silent regarding performing a perspective calibration.
Huang is similarly concerned with events occurring throughout the AM build or during discrete times within a build can result in residual stress, heat conduction, and/or process parameters in the AM part that has distortion and/or shrinkage (paragraph [0005]). Huang is concerned with systems and methods of utilizing images obtained during the AM build and processing those images to extract information indicative of defects detected on the AM part in situ during the build (paragraph [0003]). Huang teaches “obtaining thermal images (e.g. via a thermal camera configured to take thermal images)” (paragraph [0048]). Huang teaches “adding subsequent thresholded images together to create a “partial” added thermal image (FIG. 16A, which depicts FIG. 15C added to FIG. 15D) and a “complete” added thermal image (FIG. 16B), depicting the entire calibration pattern built, illustrating the perspective distortion of the thermal camera, based on the position (angle) of the thermal camera compared the machine position” (paragraph [0049]). Huang teaches that “FIG. 17A-D depict an operation (sub-step) of the calibration method in accordance with the instant disclosure” (paragraph [0050]). Huang teaches that “FIG. 17B is the calibrated visible image of FIG. 17A, showing the corrected visible image, created from a perspective transformation matrix (e.g. the mathematical model of the x, y coordinates of the calibration part from the perspective of the visible camera compared to and corrected by the machine coordinates (e.g. the plan view coordinates from the calibration part build depicted in FIG. 12)” (which reads upon “wherein the calibrating comprises performing a perspective calibration”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0050]). Huang teaches that “a perspective transformation matrix is also obtained and saved, which is then used to remove perspective distortion” (paragraph [0051]). Huang teaches that “the new image has no perspective distortion and the visible image and thermal image share the same perspective of a plan-view of the part with a same machine coordinates” (paragraph [0051]). Huang teaches that “with this same perspective and same machine coordinates, the visible images and thermal images captured layer by layer can be integrated and used to reconstruct the three dimensional quality models in accordance with various embodiments described herein” (paragraph [0051]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration method of modified Dorini to include perspective calibration, as taught by Huang to remove perspective distortion of the thermal camera such that the visible image and thermal image share the same perspective and the images can be integrated and used together.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (US 20200298473 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20160224017 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Shiraishi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Shiraishi teaches “forming an object layer by selectively irradiating the preheated thin layer with a laser beam to fuse the powder particles contained in the powder material” (paragraph [0028]). Shiraishi teaches that “powder bed fusion features high fabrication accuracy and high interlayer adhesion of laminated layers” (paragraph [0002]). Shiraishi teaches that “powder bed fusion is applicable not only to creation of prototypes for confirming the shape or properties of final products, but also to fabrication of final products” (paragraph [0002]). Shiraishi teaches that “the apparatus of the embodiment can be configured similarly to a commonly known apparatus for fabricating a three-dimensional object by powder bed fusion except for using the above-described powder materials” (paragraph [0115]).
Shiraishi is silent regarding wherein the energy source comprises an electron beam.
Huang is similarly concerned with events occurring throughout the AM build or during discrete times within a build can result in residual stress, heat conduction, and/or process parameters in the AM part that has distortion and/or shrinkage (paragraph [0005]). Huang teaches that “additive build processes utilizing a powder feedstock that can employ one or more of the embodiments of the instant disclosure include … powder bed fusion (e.g. an AM process in which thermal energy selectively fuses regions of a powder bed)” (paragraph [0071]). Huang teaches that “some non-limiting examples of suitable additive manufacturing systems include the EOSINT M 280 Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) additive manufacturing system, available from EOS GmbH (Robert-Stirling-Ring 1, 82152 Krailling/Munich, Germany). Other suitable additive manufacturing systems include Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) systems, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) systems, and Electron Beam Melting (EBM) systems, among others” (which reads upon “wherein the energy source comprises an electron beam”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0071]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the laser powder bed fusion (SLM) of Shiraishi with Electron Beam Melting (EBM), as taught by Huang because Huang teaches that either type of powder bed fusion is appropriate for additive manufacturing of powered materials. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d, 231 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP §2144.06 (II). According, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Claims 17, 19-20, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorini et al. (US 20230082932 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 17, 19-20, 23, and 25-26, Dorini teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Dorini teaches that “the measurement scale of the thermal sensor may be calibrated with respect to the onset of melting, which represents the start of a phase change for which a change in the thermal behaviour of the particulate material may be expected, and that a set point for the temperature scale of the thermal sensor 72 may relate to a characteristic material property identified from, for example, a change in the rate of increase of the measured temperature of the layer-specific region 50 due to the onset of melting” (which reads upon instant claims 17, 19-20, 23, and 25-26; paragraph [0063]; a change in the rate of increase reads on both an increase in the rate of change and a decrease in the rate of change of the layer-specific region 50). Dorini teaches that “to achieve melting of the layer-specific region 50, the layer cycle 300 of a calibration routine for the thermal sensor 72 may be repeated at least until the particulate material within the layer-specific region 50 starts to melt, wherein the step of depositing absorption modifier comprises depositing for each further layer a different amount of absorption modifier compared to the previous layer so as to cause the particulate material of the layer-specific region 50 to absorb more energy from the first heat source L1 than that of the preceding layer” (paragraph [0063]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights