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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
The terms “fine array” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “fine array” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner notes that figure 13F, does show the fine polarization array 1310. However, it is unclear what number of polarization state varying blocks like shown in figure 13F would be considered “fine” vs just a polarization array 1307 of figure 13E. The instant disclosure fails to in any way define what makes an array “fine” vs regular. Therefore, at this time for examination purposes any array of polarizers will be considered a “fine array”.
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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorontsov (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0009358 A1) in view of Blohbaum (DE 10362349 B3, where the examiner is providing a machine translation hereinwith for citations) further in view of Mosher et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0276265 A1).
As to claim 1, Vorontsov discloses and shows in figures 3, 6, 12 and 14, a sensing device, comprising:
an additive manufacturing device (400 and corresponding optics for the processing beam 402.0) having a printhead (100.4 in figure 3, or structure of figure 6) for manufacturing an additive manufactured part ([0015]; [0036], ll. 1-10; [0039], ll. 8-14; [0041], ll. 16-20; [0069], ll. 3-5);
at least one speckle generation source (523.15/500.1, where in being a laser it produces speckle, and also the detector coupled with it is a speckle-imaging receiver 523.7/500.2) located adjacent to the additive manufacturing device (inherently the source is to some degree adjacent in being able to measure the sample under test) ([0074], ll. 1-6; [0075], ll. 1-12; the examiner notes that also any of the lasers (500.1) in figure 12’s arrangement are also capable of being cited as a speckle generation source);
at least one light source (one of the other sources next to 500.1, shown via arrows of light emitting from their towards the sample) located adjacent to the at least one speckle generation source (either explicitly shown in with the 3 sources of figure 12, or clearly the case if using the source 523.15, as they both measure the same sample under test and to do so need to be adjacent) ([0069]);
at least one image capturing device (500.2/523.7 or 500.6 or 500.5) located at a pre-determined distance away (as shown and structured in figures 12 or 14) from the at least one speckle generation source and the at least one light source, wherein the at least one speckle generation source, the at least one light source, and the at least one image capturing device are used to inspect the additive manufactured part as the additive manufactured part is being made by the additive manufacturing device, to provide feedback (as disclosed the sensors can provide feedback or feedforward information during processing) to the additive manufacturing device for correction of the manufacturing of the additive manufactured part by the additive manufacturing device, or to stop the manufacturing of the additive manufactured part, ([0064]; [0075], ll. 1-12, the examiner notes that most of the limitation beyond the image capturing device is merely intended use, as the capturing device itself is not performing any feedback calculation for example, or stopping manufacturing, rather this is just an intended use of the data measured by the noted device);
an imaging lens (focusing optics 100.5/523.1) ([0039], ll. 5-8; [0075], ll. 1-3),
Vorontsov does disclose in ([0043], ll. 1-12) the use of polarization based emission and detection in an additive manufacturing process.
Vorontsov does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one image capturing device further includes a polarization image detector for use in providing information about variations in a finish of a printed surface and measuring stress in the additive manufactured part as the additive manufactured is being made by the additive manufacturing device, wherein the polarization image detector includes or a polarization fine array located adjacent to the imaging lens or a focal plane array located adjacent to the polarization fine array.
However, Blohbaum does disclose and show in figures 1 and 2 and in ([0071]; [0078]) the use of a detection system (24, 26, 28, 30) that uses a “fine” polarization array (shown clearly in figure 2). This is adjacent to the focal plane array detector (24, obviously via the converging lens shown as 26, the explicitly disclosed photodetection element array is a “focal plane array”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vorontsov with wherein the at least one image capturing device further includes a polarization image detector for use in providing information about variations in a finish of a printed surface and measuring stress in the additive manufactured part as the additive manufactured is being made by the additive manufacturing device, wherein the polarization image detector includes or a polarization fine array located adjacent to the imaging lens or a focal plane array located adjacent to the polarization fine array in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, as explicitly detailed in Blohbaum the use of polarization based imaging can be used to further augment the details resolved in Vorontsov in a spatially resolved manner (i.e. another measure by which one can analyze the topography of the surface under test) ([0005]; [0030], ll. 10-18) for accurate quality control of the surface under test.
Vorontsov in view of Blohbaum does not explicitly disclose a processor operatively connected to the at least one image capturing device for processing information from the at least one image capturing device and providing a map of any defects in the additive manufactured part.
However, Champion does disclose in ([0035], ll. 1-21) the basic concept of using a processor (i.e. controller 106) in order to use images in an additive manufacturing system to identify defect (i.e. particles above a dimensional threshold) and map them to each layer. In doing so the system can accurately determine if the particle is critical or non-critical to implement a corrective action if required.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vorontsov in view of Blohbaum with a processor operatively connected to the at least one image capturing device for processing information from the at least one image capturing device and providing a map of any defects in the additive manufactured part in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency, in using a common defect map when can set a threshold of what constitutes too large of a defect and if detected take corrective action to resolve the issue/defect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877