Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scaggs (US 8,237,922 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Scaggs shows in Fig.2 the following elements of applicant’s claim: an inlet (col.3, lines 49-54; in view of receiving fiber laser beam 12 emitted from fiber lasers, the apparatus 10 implicitly comprises an entry for accepting the fiber laser beam 12) configured to receive a laser energy beam emitted from a laser energy source; an optic module (optical elements in Fig.2) comprising one or more uncoated surfaces ( lens 32, highly reflective surface of first plate 20 may be made of a metal, etc.) configured to direct at least a portion of the laser energy beam; and a photosensitive sensor array (30, 36) position to receive the portion of the laser energy beam directed from the optics module (Fig.2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-20, 22-23, 25-26, 28-36 and 79-80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaggs (US 8,237,922 B2) in view of Munz et al (WO 2011/023765 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Scaggs shows in Fig.2 the following elements of applicant’s claim: an inlet (col.3, lines 49-54; in view of receiving fiber laser beam 12 emitted from fiber lasers, the apparatus 10 implicitly comprises an entry for accepting the fiber laser beam 12) configured to receive a laser energy beam emitted from a laser energy source; an optic module (optical elements in Fig.2); a photosensitive sensor array (30, 36), the method comprising: receiving the laser energy beam (Fig.2); determining a spatial characteristic of the laser beam emitted by the laser energy source using electrical signals produced by the photosensitive sensor array upon detecting a reflection of at least one portion of the laser energy beam (col.3, line 49-col.4, line 67; Fig.2), wherein determining the spatial characteristic of the at least one portion of the laser energy beam emitted by the laser energy source (Fig.2). Although Scaggs does not specifically mention the use of an uncoated surface, such use is known in the art as disclosed by Munz et al (page 15, lines 5-7; page 18, lines 14-19; claims 20-21) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Munz et al in the device of Scaggs in view of the desire to avoid of suffering the degradation experienced by optical coatings when exposed to high power laser beams resulting in improving the performance of the optical system.
Regarding claims 2-8, 29-33 and 79, Scaggs shows in Fig.2 the following elements of applicant’s claim: an inlet (col.3, lines 49-54; in view of receiving fiber laser beam 12 emitted from fiber lasers, the apparatus 10 implicitly comprises an entry for accepting the fiber laser beam 12) configured to receive a laser energy beam emitted from a laser energy source; an optic module (optical elements in Fig.2) comprising one or more uncoated surfaces ( lens 32, highly reflective surface of first plate 20 may be made of a metal, etc.) configured to direct at least a portion of the laser energy beam; and a photosensitive sensor array (30, 36) position to receive the portion of the laser energy beam directed from the optics module (Fig.2); and an optical interferometer (14, 16, 18), defining an optical axis, comprising and a second reflector. More specifically, Scaggs discloses (Fig.2) the use of an optical interferometer (14) comprising a first reflector (16) and a second reflector (18). The specific configuration and scheme utilized for the first and second reflectors of the optical interferometer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claims 9-11, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.1-3 of Scaggs.
Regarding claim 12, the provision of a third reflector downstream from the interferometer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the desire to direct the laser beam to a different direction resulting in affording the photosensitive sensor array at different locations.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 36, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.2, lines 7-10 and col.4, lines 65-67 of Scaggs.
Regarding claim 15-18, the limitations therein are disclosed by the modified device of Scaggs (col.3, line 49-col.4, line 67; Fig.2) in view of Munz et al (page 15, lines 5-7; page 18, lines 14-19; claims 20-21; Figs. 14, 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 19, Scaggs discloses the use of an energy detector (36) to receive a second portion of the laser energy beam transmitted through a second optical element (24).
Regarding claim 20, Scaggs discloses the use of a photodetector (30) to receive a third portion of the laser energy beam transmitted through a third optical element (28).
Regarding claim 22, Scaggs discloses that an optical interferometer (14) receives a portion of the laser energy beam reflected off a surface of a third optical element (28).
Regarding claim 23, Scaggs discloses the recited first optical element (20).
Regarding claims 25 and 34, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.4, lines 7-42 of Scaggs.
Regarding claims 26 and 35, the specific reflectivity of an uncoated surface would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 80, the limitations therein are disclosed by the device of Scaggs (col.3, line 49-col.4, line 58; Fig.2).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaggs (US 8,237,922 B2) in view of Kramer et al (US 2019/0217422 A1).
Regarding claim 27, although the laser beam analysis device of Scaggs doesn’t specifically mention that its device is used in an additive manufacturing system, such use is known in the art as disclosed by Kramer et al (Fig.1; paragraph 1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Kramer et al in the device of Scaggs in view of the desire to allow for precise measurement and analysis of laser beam parameters resulting in improving the overall efficiency and quality of additive manufacturing processes.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaggs (US 8,237,922 B2) in view of Munz et al (WO 2011/023765 A1), and further in view of Kramer et al (US 2019/0217422 A1).
Regarding claim 37, although the laser beam analysis device of Scaggs doesn’t specifically mention that its device is used in an additive manufacturing system, such use is known in the art as disclosed by Kramer et al (Fig.1; paragraph 1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Kramer et al in the modified device of Scaggs in view of the desire to allow for precise measurement and analysis of laser beam parameters resulting in improving the overall efficiency and quality of additive manufacturing processes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 21, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an optical sensing system comprising, in addition to the other recited features of claim 1 and intervening claims 2, 16 and 19-20, the limitation of “the third portion of the laser energy beam is received by the photodetector upon transmission through a first surface of the third optical element, reflection off a second surface of the third optical element, and refraction at the first surface”. Regarding claim 24, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an optical sensing system comprising, in addition to the other recited features of claim 1 and intervening claims 2, 16 and 19-20, the limitation of “the first optical element comprises a right angle prism configured to reflect the laser energy beam by total internal reflection”.
Response to Arguments
As indicated in the telephone interviews (7/1/2026 and 9/14/2026), since the 103 rejection which previously was made would be changed to new 102 rejection as set forth above, and therefore this Office action would be non-final Office action. Regarding claim 2, as indicated in the attached interview summary, the examiner asserted that the patentability regarding claim 2 had not been discussed during the interview (7/1/2026) since it would require further consideration and/or search. In fact, the examiner indicated, during the interviews, that Scaggs reference would appear to disclose the claimed features. It should be noted that the outstanding claims are rejected as set forth in the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights