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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply, filed on 09/15/2025, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “claim 25 requires the processor to “receive an image of a powder layer in a selective laser melting process in which an object is built in a layerwise manner and onto which a pattern of light is projected”. This refers to an additive manufacturing machine. A laser cutting machine does not form a powder layer or build an object in a layer-wise manner. Since laser cutting machines do not form powder layers, they can not provide images of a powder layer, and therefore cannot be used with the claimed data carrier”. This is not found persuasive because a data carrier, as claimed in claim 25, is merely a tool to store data and instructions and based on its intended use, at the time, can store the required data and instructions. It does not have to be used with a specific apparatus or system such as a SLM apparatus, claimed in claim 1, and that is why it can be used with a laser cutting machine as well. For the similar rationales provided above, a prior art search for the claimed SLM apparatus in claim 1 does not necessarily require the specifics of claim 25 that is directed to data and instructions stored on a data storage device.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “an object intended to be built” in last line of the claim. It is clear the limitation refers back to “an object” in 1st line of claim 1. However, the latter in claim 5 needs to be modified as to “the object” for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Claim 9 recites “a light pattern” in 2nd line of the claim. It is clear the limitation refers back to “a light pattern” in 6th line of claim 1. However, the latter in claim 9 needs to be modified as to “the light pattern” for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “the powder layers” in 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because even though prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 defines “each powder layer”, claim1 fail to define “powder layers”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of “the locations of the light pattern” in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 3 does not define “locations of the light pattern”.
Claims 6 and 14 recite the limitation of “the analysis” in 2nd line and 3rd line respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to cited limitations, claims 6 and 14 fail to disclose “analysis”. Clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of "the images" in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because even though prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 defines “an image”, claims fail to define “images”.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruth et al. (US 2009/0206065) in view of Chung et al. (US 6,815,636)
Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose a Selective Laser Powder Processing apparatus comprising:
a. a building platform which can comprise a powder bed;
b. a powder deposition system for providing a powder surface on said building platform;
c. laser beam means for providing a focused laser beam incident on said powder surface allowing to partially or fully melt the powder within a melt zone;
d. scanning means for scanning said laser beam across said powder surface;
e. a detector for capturing electromagnetic radiation emitted from or reflected by a moving observation zone on the powder surface, said moving observation zone comprising at least the incident point of the laser beam on the powder surface and having an area of at least 16 times the minimal laser spot area of said laser beam;
f. an optical system that follows the laser beam for transmitting said radiation towards said detector; and
g. control means responsive to said detection signal for controlling said laser beam means or said scanning means. (See page 10, 1st col., claim 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
372
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) teach a selective laser melting apparatus for building an object using a selective laser melting process in which the object is built in a layer-wise manner (¶ [0016] – page 10, left col., clm. 1), the selective laser melting apparatus comprising a build platform (¶ [0017]), a powder depositing device (¶ [0018]) for depositing layers of powder material on the build platform, an optical unit (a laser apparatus, ¶ [0019]) for directing a laser beam to selectively melt areas of each powder layer, a projector (a scanner 2, ¶ [0020]) for projecting a light pattern onto at least one of the powder layers and a camera (a detector 8, ¶ [0036] and ¶ [0037]) for capturing an image of the light pattern on the at least one powder layer.
Kruth et al. (US ‘065) discloses all the structural limitations of a selective laser melting comprising a build platform (¶ [0017]), however, is silent on disclosing that the build platform is positioned within a build chamber, as claimed in claim 1.
In the analogous art, Chung et al. (US ‘636) disclose a selective laser sintering system comprising a process chamber (102, col. 4, lines 28-30) that includes a powder bed (132) having a target area (110, col. 4, lines 37-41) at which an additive process is performed; a means (a counter-rotating leveling roller 130, col. 4, line 30) for depositing and leveling a layer of powder on the target area (110, col. 4, lines 38-39); a means (a scanning system 114, col. 4, lines 26-28) for fusing selected portions of a layer of the powder at the target area (110).
PNG
media_image3.png
498
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
496
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as to claim 1, Chung et al. (US ‘636) disclose a selective laser melting apparatus comprising a build chamber (a process chamber 102, col. 4, lines 28-30) containing a build platform (a powder bed 132, col. 4, line 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the positioning of the build platform, as taught by Kruth et al. (US ‘065), to be positioned within a build chamber in order to have a more uniform temperature across the entire target surface area within the build platform so the powder layer temperatures can be estimated and used to produce three-dimensional objects with reduced distortion and curl and further the overall temperature control in the top layers of powder in the powder bed are improved, as suggested by Chung et al. (US ‘636): col. 2, lines 60-63; col. 3, lines 8-14)
As to claim 2, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose a processor configured to use the captured image to determine a geometric property of the selective laser melting process. (See page 11, left col., claims 23-24 and ¶ [0034]: the images are processed by an image processor for generating a geometric quantity of the melt zone.)
As o claim 3, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) teach the geometric property is determined from the locations of the light pattern on the at least one powder layer. (See ¶ [0133]: to identify the geometric properties of these distinct areas or the number of distinct molten areas)
As to claim 4, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose the geometric property is a geometric property of the object. (See ¶ [0133]: to identify the geometric properties of these distinct areas or the number of distinct molten areas and ¶ [0134]: the obtained 2D images are further processed by image processing in order to determine a geometric quantity of the melt zone which can be used on the feedback loop)
As to claim 5, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) teach the processor is configured to compare the geometric property to input geometric data on which the build is based to identify differences between the object built and an object intended to be built. (see ¶ [0086]: comparison of the resulting overhang geometries after parallel scanning for the case of fixed scanning parameters and proportional control of the laser power, and further, the detector is a spatially resolved detector for providing 2D images of the observation zone and wherein said detector further comprises image processing means for determining a geometric quantity of the melt zone from said 2D images for providing a control signal for controlling said laser beam means (page 10, right column: claim 5)
As to claim 6, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose a processor configured to analyse the image and change the build based on the analysis. (¶ [0034]: the 2D images are processed by an image processor for generating a geometric quantity of the melt zone. This signal reflecting a geometric quantity of the melt zone is then fed to the control system which controls the processing parameters of the laser beam or the scanning means of the laser beam.)
As to claim 7, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) teach the projector (scanner 2) and camera (detector 8) are configured to capture the image of the light pattern on the at least one powder layer after the at least one powder layer has been scanned by the laser beam. (see ¶ [0101]: process variable that is recorded by the detector is a measured value indicative of a geometric quantity of the melt zone e.g. the area of the melt zone. This information can be extracted from the images resulting from the camera detector.)
As to claim 8, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose the light pattern is a diffraction pattern. (see ¶ [0125]: the parts were always scanned in a zigzag-scanning pattern)
As to claim 9, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose the projector (scanner 2) is configured to project a light pattern onto each of the powder layers and the camera (detector 8) is configured to capture a corresponding image of the light pattern on each of the powder layers. (See page 10, left column, lines 4-8: scanning means for scanning said laser beam across said powder surface; e. a detector for capturing electromagnetic radiation emitted from or reflected by a moving observation zone on the powder surface)
As to claim 10, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) teach a processor configured to use the images to determine a 3D model. (see ¶ [0034]: the images are processed by an image processor for generating a geometric quantity of the melt zone)
As to claim 11, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose the 3D model is of the object being built. (see the abstract: the present invention allows for the production of three-dimensional objects from powder material and improves the state of the art by compensating variations of the border conditions)
As to claim 12, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) teach a processor configured to use the image captured by the camera (detector 8) of the selective laser melting apparatus to determine a geometric property of the selective laser melting process. (see ¶ [0034]: the 2D images are processed by an image processor for generating a geometric quantity of the melt zone. This signal reflecting a geometric quantity of the melt zone is then fed to the control system which controls the processing parameters of the laser beam or the scanning means of the laser beam and ¶ [0133]: the detector identifies the geometric properties of these distinct areas or the number of distinct molten areas)
As to claim 13, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) disclose the geometric property is a geometric property of the object. (see ¶ [0133]: identifying the geometric properties of these distinct areas or the number of distinct molten areas illustrates the length and width of the melt zone.)
As to claim 14, Kruth et al. (US ‘065) teach the processor is configured to analyse the image and change the build based on the analysis. (See [0034]: the images are processed by an image processor for generating a geometric quantity of the melt zone.)
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,850,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims in the instant application and in the issued patent have similar claimed structural limitations to the extent that they are not patentably distinct.
As to claim 1 of the instant application, Patent No. ‘326 disclose a selective laser melting apparatus (a laser solidification apparatus, col. 15, claim 1: line 25) for building an object using a selective laser melting process in which the object is built in a layer-wise manner (col. 15, claim 1: line 26), the selective laser melting apparatus comprising a build chamber containing a build platform (col. 15, claim 1: line 27), a powder depositing device for depositing layers of powder material on the build platform (col. 15, claim 1: line 28), an optical unit for directing a laser beam to selectively melt areas of each powder layer (col. 15, claim 1: line 29), a projector (tiltable mirrors and movable focusing optics; col. 15, claim 1: lines 31-33) for projecting a light pattern onto at least one of the powder layers and a camera (a photodetector; col. 15, claim 1: lines 38-40) for capturing an image of the light pattern on the at least one powder layer.
As to claims 2-14 of the instant application, Patent No. ‘326 disclose similar claimed structure with the similar function in claims 2-13 to the extent that they are not patentably independent and distinct.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,044,618. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims in the instant application and in the issued patent have similar claimed structural limitations to the extent that they are not patentably distinct.
As to claim 1 of the instant application, Patent No. ‘212 disclose a selective laser melting apparatus (a selective laser solidification apparatus, col. 15, claim 1: line 1) for building an object using a selective laser melting process, the selective laser melting apparatus comprising a build chamber containing a build platform (col. 15, claim 1: lines 3-4), a powder depositing device for depositing layers of powder material on the build platform (col. 15, claim 1: lines 3-4), an optical unit layer (an optical train; col. 16, claim 1: line 5) for directing a laser beam to selectively melt areas of each powder, a projector (an optical scanner; col. 15, claim 1: line 4) for projecting a light pattern onto at least one of the powder layers and a camera (a detector; col. 16, claim 1: lines 2-5) for capturing an image of the light pattern on the at least one powder layer.
As to claims 2-14 of the instant application, Patent No. ‘212 disclose similar claimed structure with the similar function in claims 2-9 to the extent that they are not patentably independent and distinct.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Renz et al. (US 7,847,212) disclose an apparatus for the manufacture of a molding by selective laser melting comprises a process chamber 11 and a displacement assembly 24 directing a laser beam 27 generated by a laser 26 onto the build platform 22 or base plate 28 is provided above the build chamber 18.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 10/17/2025