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 Group I (i.e., claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the multiple groups can be searched and examined together without undue burden because of the commonly recited features and the classification for the multiple groups encompasses all the listed classes.
This is not found persuasive because:
The groups are directed to distinct inventions having different classifications which is sufficient prove of search burden (See CTRS dated 03/02/2021). Furthermore, the search of Group I does not necessarily require search in classes B33Y10/00, B29C64/118, and B29C70/382 as applicant alleges. Although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive;
The groups are directed to a different category of subject matter (See MPEP 2016.03) and are examined and interpretated differently (See MPEP 2103 C and 2113: See claim interpretation and 112b rejections set forth below). For instance, the examination on the merits of apparatus claims differs from that of method claims;
Non-common features are also recited in the multiples groups which make the groups distinct inventions and the comparison of non-common features should be based upon all the claims of the groups instead of only independent claims; and
The prior art applied to the elected Group I below is not sufficient to cover the search and examination of the claimed subject matter of non-elected groups II and III.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the requirement between Groups I-III is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With respect to the Species restriction requirement between Species A1-A3, Applicant's election
with traverse of Species A1 (i.e., claims 4-5) in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the changes in shape are/seems obvious variants and the search burden is negligible.
Examiners finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive and withdraws the Species restriction requirement between Species A1-A3 herein.
Accordingly, claim(s) 8-21 are/remain withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected Groups I and II, and claim(s) 1-7 is/are examined herein.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63581618, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The disclosure of the provisional application does not seem to have adequate support for the subject matter of claims 3 and 5-7. As a result, claims 3 and 5-7 are giving the effective filing date of 09/09/2024.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-7 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus (e.g. “for use in an additive manufacturing machine”) and/or the material worked upon (e.g. “laser beam”, “tow”, and “substrate”) by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP §§ 2114-2115 for further details).
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 1-7 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 “the arrangement of the one or more optical lenses being configured to achieve a predetermined projected size of a laser beam corresponding with a selected tow size” which is indefinite. The limitation is indefinite because it attempts to define the function/result of the claimed entity (the arrangement of the one or more optical lenses) in terms of unclaimed entities (i.e. laser beam and the selected tow size) not forming part of the claimed telescope box. The limitation is indefinite because the claimed language merely recite the function/result achieved by the claimed the arrangement of the one or more optical lenses without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the claim scope and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the claim to achieve the claimed function/result. The corresponding structural relationship between the arrangement of the one or more optical lenses and the tow size is unclear. It is also unclear what and how the tow size is selected and is related to the arrangement of the one or more optical lenses. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g). The limitation has been examined below as best understood.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the telescope mechanism” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the telescope mechanism” in the claim(s).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a second telescope box configured for a different predetermined tow size” which is indefinite. The limitation is indefinite because it attempts to define the function/result of the claimed entity (the second telescope box) in terms of unclaimed entities (i.e., different predetermined tow size) not forming part of the claimed telescope boxes. The limitation is indefinite because the claimed language merely recite the function/result achieved by the claimed second telescope box without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the claim scope and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the claim to achieve the claimed function/result. The corresponding structural relationship between the second telescope box and the different predetermined tow size is unclear. It is also unclear what and how the different predetermined tow size is selected and is related to the second telescope box. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g). The limitation has been examined below as best understood.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the tow” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the tow” in the claim(s).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the substrate” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the substrate” in the claim(s).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abt (DE 102017215840 A1 with English machine translation - attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Abt discloses a telescope box (focusing module 13 reads on the claimed telescope box) for use in an additive manufacturing machine (13 for use in selective laser sintering: pg. 1; See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I and 2114 I), the telescope box comprising:
one or more optical lenses (focusing optics 14 which compromises at least one focusing lens: pg. pg. 3, Fig. 8);
a support structure (carrier housing) structured and arranged to hold the one or more optical lenses (14) disposed in a predetermined arrangement (pg. 2, pg. 3, Fig. 8), the arrangement of the one or more optical lenses being configured to achieve a predetermined projected size of a laser beam (pg. 2, pg. 3, pg. 5) corresponding with a selected tow size (corresponding to a desired/required laser beam diameter/size: pg. 2, pg. 3, pg. 5; wherein the desired/required laser beam size is capable of corresponding to a selected tow size when/if using tow as the material worked upon by the laser beam: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I and 2114 I); and
one or more mechanical attachment structures (16) configured for attaching the telescope box to the additive manufacturing machine (pg. 1, pg. 5, Figs. 1-2);
wherein the one or more mechanical attachment structures (16) are further configured for repeatable exchange of the telescope mechanism with a second telescope box (pg. 3, pg. 5, Fig. 8) configured for a different predetermined tow size (the second focusing module 13 configured for projecting a different/second laser beam diameter/size: thus, the second focusing module 13 is capable of being configured for a different predetermined tow size when/if using tow as the material worked upon: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I and 2114 I).
PNG
media_image1.png
599
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Von (US 20220009030).
Regarding claim 3, Abt further discloses wherein the one or more optical lenses includes a plurality of optical lenses (the focusing optics 14 includes a plurality of optical lenses for the benefit(s) of reducing aberration/astigmatism: pg. 3).
However, Abt fails to disclose wherein at least one lens of the plurality of optical lenses is movable with respect to another lens of the plurality of optical lenses, movement of the at least one lens changing a size of a laser pattern on at least one of a tow and a substrate to which the tow is applied.
In the same field of endeavor, optic assemblies for use in additive manufacturing machines, Von discloses the technique of making at least one optical lens of a plurality of optical lenses movable with respect to another optical lens of the plurality of optical lenses such that movement of the at least one optical lens changes a size/diameter of a laser pattern projected from a telescope box (130) onto a build surface (P0074-0078, 0041-0045, Figs. 6-7).
Since Abt discloses the desire to control/adjust the size/diameter of a laser pattern projected from the telescope box, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescope box of Abt in view of Von by making at least one optical lens of the plurality of optical lenses movable with respect to another optical lens of the plurality of optical lenses such that movement of the at least one optical lens changes a size/diameter of the laser pattern projected from the telescope box onto a build surface such as a tow and/or a substrate/workpiece to which the tow is applied for the benefit(s) of facilitating and/or expanding adjustments to the the size/diameter of the projected laser as suggested/predicted by Von. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I D, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feldmann (US 20190299286).
Regarding claim 4, Abt fails to disclose wherein a laser light pattern projected from the arrangement of lenses has a rectangular shape.
In the same field of endeavor, optic assemblies for use in additive manufacturing machines, Feldmann discloses the technique of arranging lenses on a telescope box (3) such that a laser light pattern projected from the arrangement of lenses has a rectangular shape for the benefit(s) irradiating the build surface/workpiece with a desirable rectangular shape and/or providing substantially uniform power density to the laser light pattern (abstract, P0005, 0057, 0076, Fig. 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescope box of Abt in view of Feldmann by arranging the lenses on the telescope box such that a laser light pattern projected from the arrangement of lenses has a rectangular shape for the benefit(s) of irradiating the build surface/workpiece with a desirable rectangular shape and/or providing substantially uniform power density to the laser light pattern as suggested/predicted by Feldmann. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I D, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hishita (US 20240036344) and Feldmann (US 20190299286).
Regarding claims 5-7, Abt further discloses to include a windowing feature (14a: pg. 5, Fig. 8).
However, Abt fails to disclose a windowing feature configured to affect a shape of a laser pattern projected from the telescope box onto at least one of the tow and the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, optic assemblies for use in additive manufacturing machines, Hishita discloses the technique of incorporating a windowing feature (24) configured to affect a shape of a laser pattern projected from a telescope lens arrangement onto a target object (P0007, 0057-0061, Fig. 2), wherein the windowing feature (24b) is configured to limit the laser pattern to a rectangular shape (P0154, 0186, Figs. 17-18), and/or wherein the windowing feature (24a) is configured to limit the laser pattern to a circular shape (P0117, 0186, Figs. 13-14) for the benefit(s) of improving shaping of the light pattern, suppressing light leakage, and/or suppressing a temperature rise (P0005-0007).
In the same field of endeavor, optic assemblies for use in additive manufacturing machines, Feldmann discloses that laser patterns with a circular shape and rectangular shape are known and yield desirable power densities in the art (P0005, 0022, Figs. 1-18).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescope box of Abt in view of Hishita and Feldmann by incorporating a windowing feature configured to affect a shape of a laser pattern projected from the telescope box onto the target object such as the tow or the substrate, wherein the windowing feature is configured to limit the laser pattern to a rectangular shape, and/or wherein the windowing feature is configured to limit the laser pattern to a circular shape for the benefit(s) of improving shaping of the light pattern, suppressing light leakage, suppressing a temperature rise, and/or providing know shapes with desirable power densities as suggested/predicted by Hishita and Feldmann. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I D, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Spoerl (US 20110075274) discloses a relevant telescope box (20: Figs. 1-3 and accompanying text).
Belletti (US 20110056921) discloses a relevant telescope box (20: Figs. 1-4 and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights