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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the mirror being configured to deflect . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the one or more other optical element" in lines 2-3 should read "the one or more other optical elements". 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.
Claim 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as neither a first profile nor a second profile as been referenced. It is noted that said profiles are reference in canceled claim 9. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “a first profile to a second profile”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 16-17, 21-22, 29, 35, 41, 44 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milshtein (US 2018/0154442 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Milshtein teaches a device for energy beam translation (100 in Figure 1; paragraph 0111), the device comprising:
an actuator (paragraph 0220, first optical element may be coupled to an actuator (e.g., lateral actuator; paragraph 0250, motors may comprise actuators);
a mirror operatively coupled with the actuator configured to move the mirror about an axis (1131, 1135 in Figure 11; paragraph 0221), the mirror being configured to deflect [an] energy beam impinging on the mirror (energy beam 119); and
a housing configured to (a) accommodate the mirror (optical enclosure 155), (b) facilitate transmission of the energy beam propagating along an optical path disposed in the housing (as shown in Figure 1), and (c) operatively couple with an optical window (optical winder 132) configured to facilitate the energy beam to propagate therethrough and out of the housing (as shown in Figure 1; paragraph 0120, the energy flux 119 (e.g., from energy source 122) travels through one optical window 132).
Milshtein does not disclose wherein:
a. during operation, the device is configured to bring about translation of the energy beam along a target surface with a positional error at the target surface, the positional error being of a value of at most about 0.01 percent, the value of the positional error being relative to a portion of the path from the axis of the mirror to the target surface;
b. the device comprising a guard configured to shield the mirror from at least a portion of stray radiation in the housing;
c. the mirror being coupled with the actuator with an adhesive having a liquidous phase transition at a temperature of at least about 120 degrees Celsius;
d. the device is configured to maintain its standard operation at a temperature of at least about 80 degrees Celsius, the standard operation being at an ambient temperature external to the device;
e. the device is configured to maintain the standard operation while being subject to stray radiation that increases the temperature of the standard operation by a temperature increase value of from about zero degrees Celsius to at least about 25 degrees Celsius, the temperature increase being (i) of the actuator and/or (ii) of the mirror;
f. a fastener of the actuator has a torque value of at least about 1.5 Newton*meters;
g. during operation, the mirror is configured to have a frequency response drift, the frequency response drift having a value of at most about two hertz per degree Celsius;
h. during operation, the mirror is configured to have a total drift tolerance frequency having a value of at most about 100 Hertz;
i. the device comprises an optical element having a reflectivity value of at least about 90 percent or higher, the optical element comprising the mirror, a mount of the mirror, the actuator, or the guard, the reflectivity being of the energy beam; or
j. any combination of (A) to (I).
However, Milshtein discloses an optical element having a high reflectivity may have a reflectivity of at least about 88% (paragraph 0216) which does not overlap but is close to the reflectivity value of at least about 90 percent or higher (step i) of the instant application. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the reflectivity value since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Further, it is noted step j of claim 1 recites any combination of steps a to I; hence, only step i need be considered.
Regarding claim 7, Milshtein further discloses one or more other optical elements other than the mirror and the actuator (paragraph 0111, comprising an aperture, lens, mirror, beam splitter, or deflector).
Regarding claim 16, Milshtein further discloses the housing (optical enclosure 155) is configured (A) for reversibly installed and uninstalled without substantial alteration to the beam path of the energy beam at the target surface, and/or (B) to be reversibly installed and uninstalled for the purpose comprising maintenance, upgrade, or replacement; and optionally wherein the housing is a field replaceable unit (paragraph 0120, optical enclosure may optionally be coupled with the processing chamber).
Regarding claim 17, Milshtein further discloses the target surface comprises an exposed surface of a material bed (paragraph 0106, heating at least a portion of a target surface (e.g., exposed surface of a material bed)).
Regarding claim 21, Milshtein further discloses the energy beam is configured to irradiate the target surface to transform a starting material into a transformed material to print a three-dimensional object; and optionally wherein transformation of the starting material comprises melting or sintering (paragraphs 0101-0102, The pre-transformed material may be a material that was, or was not, transformed prior to its use in the 3D printing process. The pre-transformed material may be a material that was partially transformed prior to its use in the 3D printing process).
Regarding claim 22, Milshtein further discloses the mirror being coupled with the actuator (paragraph 0220, first optical element may be coupled to a movable element (e.g., a swivel mount, a gimbal, a motor, an electronic controller, a moving belt, or a scanner) that translates the first optical element), but does not disclose with an adhesive having a liquidous phase transition at a temperature of at least about 120 degrees Celsius. It would have been obvious to use an adhesive for attachment of the mirror for high temperature application with compromise to the structure of the mirror.
Regarding claim 29, Milshtein teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose an optical element having a reflectivity value of at least about 90 percent (%), the optical element comprising the mirror, a mount of the mirror, the actuator, or the guard, the reflectivity being of the energy beam.
However, Milshtein discloses an optical element having a high reflectivity may have a reflectivity of at least about 88% (paragraph 0216) which does not overlap but is close to the reflectivity value of at least about 90 percent or higher (step i) of the instant application. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the reflectivity value since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 35, Milshtein further discloses the housing comprise a galvanometer scanner that comprises the mirror (paragraph 200, The galvanometer may comprise a mirror).
Regarding claim 41, Milshtein further discloses the optical path is disposed in one or more channels within the housing (paragraph 0244, the energy beam may be elongated by an energy beam perforation (e.g., an elongated slit) that the energy beam may be allowed to pass through).
Regarding claim 44, Milshtein further discloses the mount comprises a central portion from which supporting beams extend to different edges of the mirror, the supportive beams being configured to (A) support similar weight and/or (B) withstand a similar force as compared to each other (paragraph 0220, first optical element may be coupled to a movable element (e.g., a swivel mount).
Regarding claim 57, Milshtein further discloses the housing is configured to engage with (i) an energy source for the energy beam, (ii) a coolant source, and/or (iii) a gas source (paragraph 0111, a (e.g., first) energy source 122 (e.g., a tiling energy source) that emits a (e.g., first) energy beam 119).
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milshtein, in view of Cheung (US 4,701,592 A).
Regarding claim 4, Milshtein teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose a guard configured to shield the mirror from at least a portion of stray radiation in the housing, wherein the guard is configured to guard the mirror from stray radiation incoming into the housing through the optical window.
Cheung teaches an apparatus for depositing a layer of a material on a substrate and annealing the deposited layer (Figures 1-2), wherein a first beam (20) from a laser (26) enters a chamber (12) through a first window (40) and is reflected by a shielded mirror (44). Further, a slotted shield (46) permits only a small portion of the mirror to be exposed (col. 4, line 8 to col. 5, line 21). Said configuration reduces clouding of the mirror and permits a constant, high deposition rate over a long period of time (col. 5, lines 17-21). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified the invention of Milshtein with a guard (i.e., shield) as disclosed by Cheung, for the benefits disclosed, i.e., reducing clouding of the mirror and permiting a constant, high deposition rate over a long period of time.
Regarding claim 8, Milshtein teaches all the elements of claim 7, but does not disclose a guard is configured to shield the mirror from stray radiation reflected from the one or more other optical element[s].
Cheung teaches an apparatus for depositing a layer of a material on a substrate and annealing the deposited layer (Figures 1-2), wherein a first beam (20) from a laser (26) enters a chamber (12) through a first window (40) and is reflected by a shielded mirror (44). Further, a slotted shield (46) permits only a small portion of the mirror to be exposed (col. 4, line 8 to col. 5, line 21). Said configuration reduces clouding of the mirror and permits a constant, high deposition rate over a long period of time (col. 5, lines 17-21). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified the invention of Milshtein with a guard (i.e., shield) as disclosed by Cheung, for the benefits disclosed, i.e., reducing clouding of the mirror and permiting a constant, high deposition rate over a long period of time.
Regarding claim 40, Milshtein teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the stray radiation comprises (i) radiation entering the housing through the optical window and/or (ii) reflected from one or more optical elements disposed in the housing.
Cheung teaches an apparatus for depositing a layer of a material on a substrate and annealing the deposited layer (Figures 1-2), wherein a first beam (20) from a laser (26) enters a chamber (12) through a first window (40) and is reflected by a shielded mirror (44). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified the invention of Milshtein with a shielded mirror as disclosed by Cheung, for the benefits disclosed, i.e., reducing clouding of the mirror and permiting a constant, high deposition rate over a long period of time.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milshtein, in view of Pieger (US 2020/0269500 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Milshtein teaches all the elements of claim 7, but does not disclose the device comprises an axicon or an optical wedge, wherein (I) the axicon is configured to alter the energy beam from [a] first profile to [a] second profile, (II) the axicon is reversibly translatable, and/or (Ill) the optical wedge is configured to direct a reflected beam from the target surface to be detected by a detector; and optionally wherein translatable is in real time during the printing.
Pieger teaches a processing machine (1 in Figures) for producing a three-dimensional component (2) by irradiating a metallic powder (3), comprising: an axion (23; paragraph 0052) configured to convert a first beam profile (S1) in to a second beam profile (S2). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified the invention of Milshtein and provided an axicon, as disclosed by Pieger, for the benefit of higher energy efficiency and precision/accuracy.
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milshtein, in view of Brown (US 2018/0326485 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Milshtein teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the housing is configured to facilitate flow of at least one coolant type therethrough, the at least one coolant type configured to cool the mirror and/or the actuator during operation of the device to translate the energy beam.
Brown teaches an optical module (105 in Figures 1-2; paragraph 0048), comprising: beam director modules (106) each having mirrors (paragraph 0052); and cooling channels (128) for maintaining a uniform temperature across the optical module (paragtparh 0054). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified the invention of Milshtein and the housing with cooling channels, as disclosed by Brown, in order to maintain a uniform temperature therein and of the components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights