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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC §112 Rejection.
Claims 3-6 are objected Claims.
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.
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 1-2 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.
In claim 1 the limitation of “determining an optimal scan sequence of a first laser using a linear physics-based thermal model via control theory and determining a temperature evolution using a finite difference method (FDM) expressed as a linear state space model, using the linear state space model to determine the optimal scan sequence to minimizes a thermal uniformity metric” is unclear, because there two determining steps and two “using” steps, which suggests that the “linear physics-based thermal model via control theory” is separate from the “finite difference method (FDM) expressed as a linear state space model”.
However, in the specification they appear to be the same, which makes the scope of the claim unclear. It seems like instead of “and” in the claim limitation above, it should be “which includes”, to make it clear that the use of the FDM is part of the linear physics-based thermal model via control theory. Also, “to minimizes” should be “that minimizes”.
The scope of the claim is also unclear because it uses vague terms like “linear physics-based thermal model”, “control theory”, and “linear state space model”, which do not specifically define the models, but instead refer to broad classes of models which are not clearly defined. So, the scope of the claim 1 is unclear. The applicant is respectfully requested to specify more clearly what is within the scope of the claim, preferably by reciting the particular equations or models to be used.
Claim 2 is likewise rejected because it depends from claim 1.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites “determining an optimal power…”, but how this is done is not exactly described in the specification. In the specification in paragraphs [0109]-[0111]: the text of equation (25) in paragraph [0110] is too small to read and paragraph [0111] does not appear to describe clearly how the optimization is carried out. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not know how to carry out the method of claim 7.
Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to because it uses many symbols which are not defined in the claim. Claim 3 should be amended to include the definitions of the symbols in the body of the claim. For instance: the symbols BeqT, CeqT, Ceq, Beq …. l are not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim 3, but claims 3-6 would be allowable if an appropriate amendment was made to overcome the objection to base claim 3.
1) Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 1:
Brochu (US Pub.20190217416) discloses a powder bed additive manufacturing technique by which the energy pulse parameter and/or the raster parameters (e.g., speed and/or path) can be changed during the creation of a layer of the article from the powder in a sequence(para [005], and further the first sequence of energy pulses may comprise, for each energy pulse, taking into consideration the temperature of adjacent material to the powder material melted by the energy pulse. Determining the first sequence of pulses associated to the first region may comprises, for each energy pulse, taking into consideration the temperature of the adjacent material as affected by cooling and by heating via previous or subsequent energy pulses(para 007], e.g., disclose the sequence of pulses associated with region and takes in consideration temperature of the adjacent material. Energy pulses adapted to melt powder, by heating the powder.
Liance (CN 113441733) discloses provide a heat preservation sulphur pump impeller material additive manufacturing process control method, to reduce the temperature gradient in the laser forming process, reduce the residual stress in the component, at the same time refining the grain tissue.
In order to realize the purpose of the invention, the technical solution of the invention is as follows: A heat preservation sulphur pump impeller material additive manufacturing process control method, comprising the following steps: the first step, the impeller additive manufacturing metal powder with heterogeneous nucleation refiner powder for mixing; the second step, using slice software to slice and scan path area discretization planning of the to-be-formed impeller component; the third step, laser energy input according to the planned scanning path into non-continuous input; the fourth step, laser additive manufacturing.(see page 2, para 4 and 5).
Mcfarland (WO2020183145A1) discloses method of powder bed fusion additive manufacture comprising forming a component in a powder bed in a layer-by-layer process. The method may comprise sintering, without melting, selected regions of powder with an energy beam to form at least one support adjacent to the component; and melting further selected regions of the powder bed with an energy beam to form a component by layer-by-layer melting of material.(abstract); the powder is relatively thermally insulating, it may be necessary to monitor and model the temperature distribution in the powder bed with a system controller. The heater size will depend upon the scale of the powder bed, for example a 2kW heater may be provided. (see Claim 5).
Xiao (CN 108637252A) discloses simulation verification by the thermal stress condition of the initial scanning path, and adjusts each grid entity aiming at the path area of the scanning order(Abstract)
Martinsen (EP3406373A1) discloses laser source situated to emit a laser beam, a 3D scanner situated to receive the laser beam and to direct the laser beam along a scan path in a scanning plane at the target, and a laser source digital modulator coupled to the laser source so as to produce a fluence at the scanning plane along the scan path that is in a predetermined fluence range as the laser beam scan speed changes along the scan path. (Abstract);
beams and associated optical radiation refers to electromagnetic radiation at wavelengths of between about 100 nm and 10 .Math.m, and typically between about 500 nm and 2 .Math.m. Examples based on available laser diode sources and optical fibers generally are associated with wavelengths of between about 800 nm and 1700 nm. In some examples, propagating optical radiation is referred to as one or more beams having diameters, asymmetric fast and slow axes, beam cross-sectional areas, and beam divergences that can depend on beam wavelength and the optical systems used for beam shaping. For convenience, optical radiation is referred to as light in some examples, and need not be at visible wavelengths (see Page 5, para 5), e.g., laser operation source in particular wavelength.
Martinsesn discloses the adjusting scan path characteristics and laser scanner dynamics.
Regarding Claim 3: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method for laser power bed fusion scab sequence having the steps of:
“determining an optimal scan sequence of a first laser at any given time step lp by (i) calculating a vector
PNG
media_image1.png
47
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and determining an index I corresponding to its smallest element, (ii) selecting an optimal feature at time lp that minimizes R(lp+1) by entering 1 as the element of Ueq(lp)
corresponding to index i; (iii) calculating the optimal thermal distribution T(lp+1); (iv)
advancing to time Ip+1 and repeating the process from (i)”.
Claim 3 would therefore be allowable if rewritten to address the objection above, as would dependent claims 4-6. Claims 4-7 are not rejected under 102 or 103 as being dependent from a base claim 3.
Claims 1-2 are not presently rejected under 102 or 103 due to the issues raised above under 112(b) which prevent a clear understanding of the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights