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 without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1 – 10 and 15) in the reply filed on April 23, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 11 – 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 23, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 06, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 4 – 8 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases "preferably" and "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 6 – 8 are rejected as being indefinite based on their, direct and/or indirect, dependent status from rejected claim 5.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wood et al. (US 2023/0201927 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wood et al. teaches a method of controlling an additive printing process implemented by a 3D printer in manufacturing a 3D object from multiple layers of print material ([0009] “a method of estimating the temperature distribution inside a part manufactured by powder bed fusion process… outputting an estimate of the set of variables that are input to a model predictive control (MPC) to alter a set of control inputs to the power bed fusion process to drive the estimate to a predetermined target temperature field.”), the method comprising:
printing a layer of print material across a print area according to a first print sequence of islands and/or stripes using a thermal fusion process (FIG. 5 [0099]
“The process occurs in three stages: 1) Sweep a layer of powder atop the build plate or an existing layer of powder, 2) sinter a pattern of 2D geometry into the laser with a laser (L-PBF) or electron beam (E-PBF), and 3) index the build platform in the —z direction to accommodate a new layer of powder, thus restarting the cycle.”),
wherein the layer comprises a plurality of melt areas of the print material (FIG. 7 [0101, 0105]);
obtaining temperature distribution information for the layer across the entire print area (e.g., see [0123] “a measurement of a temperature of the part during the process at specific locations”, [0053] “providing information on the heat applied to the top surface of the part during the process”, [0066] “y(t) measures temperatures on the top surface”; [0037, 0088 – 0095, 0105-0107]);
calculating a second print sequence of islands and/or stripes based on the temperature distribution information for printing an immediately succeeding layer of print material on the layer ([0087] “the MPC component 408 uses them (temperature estimates) as a basis to alter the prescribed set of control inputs to the powder bed fusion (PBF) 412 machine in (quasi)-real time in view of uncertainty 410 in PBF process inputs,” see [0047, 0052, 0065 – 0066, 0087 – 0088], see FIG. 4 and [0099] “The process occurs in three stages: 1) Sweep a layer of powder atop the build plate or an existing layer of powder, 2) sinter a pattern of 2D geometry into the laser with a laser (L-PBF) or electron beam (E-PBF), and 3) index the build platform in the —z direction to accommodate a new layer of powder, thus restarting the cycle.”),
wherein the second print sequence is optimized based on the temperature distribution information to produce an optimal uniform temperature distribution throughout the immediately succeeding layer (see FIG. 4 and [0087 – 0090] “The control inputs are altered to perform corrective action, as necessary, so that x̂k|k is driven towards some predetermined target temperature field (404), r(t)”… “The algorithm passes uk+1 as determined by MPC into the process at the next time step, then throws out the remaining values in U. The whole optimization is carried out at the next time step.”) that mitigates development of thermally induced residual stress and thermal distortion related thereto in the 3D object during the additive printing process ([0100] “Many defects in conventional approaches are a direct consequence of improper thermal management during the process, and could be mitigated by controlling the temperature field during building.”; [0005 – 0006, 0028, 0100 – 0105]); and
printing the immediately succeeding layer using the thermal process onto the layer according to the second print sequence (FIGs. 4 – 5, [0027] and [0087] “It functions by forecasting the process behavior N time steps into the future, and performing joint optimization (with constraints) over the spaces of process states and process inputs to identify those inputs which drive x̂k|k towards r(t) as rapidly as possible while obeying constraints and hyperparameter selection.”, and [0099] “The process occurs in three stages: 1) Sweep a layer of powder atop the build plate or an existing layer of powder, 2) sinter a pattern of 2D geometry into the laser with a laser (L-PBF) or electron beam (E-PBF), and 3) index the build platform in the —z direction to accommodate a new layer of powder, thus restarting the cycle.”).
Therefore, Wood et al. Model Predictive Control (MPC) anticipates the method of controlling an additive printing process implemented by a 3D printer as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining temperature distribution information for the succeeding layer across the entire print area [0087, 0099]; calculating a third print sequence of islands and/or stripes for printing a third layer of print material on the succeeding layer [0087, 0099], wherein the third print sequence is different than each of the first and second print sequences (e.g., [0027] “A state observer is provided which estimates the time-varying surface and/or subsurface temperatures of components being manufactured via PBF. State observers belong to a class of algorithms which synthesize direct measurements of the available process inputs and outputs with a model which estimates the process states (which may be composed of measured and unmeasured states)”), and is optimized to produce an optimal uniform temperature distribution throughout the third layer that mitigates development of thermally induced residual stress and thermal distortion related thereto in the 3D object during the additive printing process; and printing the third layer using the thermal process onto the succeeding layer according to the third print sequence (see FIG. 4 and [0087 – 0090], and [0005 – 0006, 0028, 0100 – 0105]).
Regarding claim 5, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining temperature distribution information includes obtaining thermographic image data of a macro thermal field of the layer, preferably using at least one of an infrared camera and a near-infrared camera (see [0028, 0088, 0095, 0102]).
Regarding claim 6, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the step of calculating comprises analyzing the temperature distribution information using a mathematical thermophysical-based (MTB) model (e.g., “Model Predictive Control (MPC)” [0102], see [0103] “This material properties mismatch represents the linear model having inaccurate knowledge of the “real” (closed loop) system properties, even as equation (18) enforces compliance with a reference temperature field that is correlated with desired thermophysical properties.”), that predicts the temperature distribution throughout the second layer [0027, 0114], and the MTB model computes the temperature distribution for the second print sequence of islands and/or stripes based on thermal characteristics of the print material, temperature distribution of the first layer, and geometry of the second layer (see FIGs. 4 – 12 and [0027, 0087, 0099, 0103]).
Regarding claim 7, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising using the thermographic image data to calibrate/update [0026] the MTB model (Abstract, [0065, 0087, 0103]).
Regarding claim 9, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the additive printing process comprises a powder bed fusion process ([0008] “Estimation algorithms, methods, and systems are provided that estimate the internal temperatures inside of a part being built using powder bed fusion (PBF)”; [0087]).
Regarding claim 10, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the print material comprises at least one of a metal, a plastic, and a ceramic [0004 – 0005].
Regarding claim 15, Wood et al. teaches a set of computer instructions recorded on a non-transitory medium configured to implement the method recited in claim 1 ([0117 – 0122] “Computer storage media include volatile and non-volatile, and removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. Memory 1304, removable storage 1308, and non-removable storage 1310 are all examples of computer storage media.”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2023/0201927 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0229208 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising spreading printing material onto the layer for forming of the succeeding layer by means of a fusion process ([0099] “The process occurs in three stages: 1) Sweep a layer of powder atop the build plate or an existing layer of powder, 2) sinter a pattern of 2D geometry into the laser with a laser (L-PBF) or electron beam (E-PBF), and 3) index the build platform in the —z direction to accommodate a new layer of powder, thus restarting the cycle.”), except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the step of obtaining is performed during the step of spreading.
Wood et al., however, discloses at [0088] “y(t) ∈ ℝp collects the temperatures recorded in each pixel of an infrared (IR) camera with a fixed FOV that covers all of Ω” (where Ω is the exposed surface of the part exposed to the laser).
Like Wood et al., Yang et al. teaches an apparatus for an electron-beam powder bed fusion (EB-PBF) printer [0004], comprising, inter alia, a PBF apparatus (comprising controller 214 and processor/CPU 578) configured for printer parameter variation with closed-loop control and configured for data collection and analysis, “such collected data may be used to adjust printer parameters and/or otherwise configure PBF apparatus for future print operations, such as by developing mathematical and/or heuristics functions designed to increase material properties and ensure consistency in the build process” [0050, 0080] (analogous to Wood et al. model predictive control (MPC)),
a radiation collector, or multiple [0024], (analogous to Wood et al. thermal/infrared (IR) camera, and the claimed “infrared or near-infrared camera”) inside the vacuum chamber to collect radiation from the powder bed for processing to determine characteristics of the powder bed [0021, 0027, 0032 – 0033],
said radiation measurements “may be taken at different time periods and compared” [0049], and provided to the processor [0035], which “can determine UV radiation information either in real time or during a re-coat cycle (analogous to the claimed “wherein the step of obtaining is performed during the step of spreading”) to capture these changes in measurements, and the print controller can make the appropriate adjustments, either in near real-time or in the next scanning cycle” [0034],
“the radiation collector may be located in different portions of the vacuum chamber and may be positioned to receive radiation from any portion of the powder bed surface,” e.g., “UV spectrum and, portions of adjacent spectra (e.g., visible light and/or infrared (IR) and near-IR)” [0029].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the step of obtaining temperature distribution information in the method of Wood et al. so that the step of obtaining is performed during the step of spreading i.e., during a re-coat cycle, as suggested by the prior art, for the purpose capturing these changes in measurements as outputs to be fed to Wood et al. model predictive control (MPC) as inputs, so that “the print controller can make the appropriate adjustments, either in near real-time or in the next scanning cycle,” as taught by Yang et al. [0034]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 4, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining and calculating steps are accomplished in real time during additive printing process between printing the layer and the succeeding layer ([0087] “the MPC component 408 uses them as a basis to alter the prescribed set of control inputs to the powder bed fusion (PBF) 412 machine in (quasi)-real time in view of uncertainty 410 in PBF process inputs”), except for explicitly disclosing in less than about 60 seconds, or less than 30 seconds.
Yang et al. at [0033] discloses that “The process or print controllers may in turn issue instructions to change one or more printer parameters of the 3-D print job in or near real time upon receipt of the information determined from the UV radiation.”
In this case, the speed at which the obtaining and calculating steps are performed is governed by well-known variables, such as the hardware capacity used in the processor unit and controller, for example. Here, both Wood et al. and Yang et al., disclose that the calculating steps, as well as the control inputs to the powder bed fusion (PBF) apparatus happens in (quasi)-real time (Wood et al.) and/or in or near real time (Yang et al.). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as obtaining and calculating steps are accomplished in real time during additive printing process between printing the layer and the succeeding layer, in e.g., less than about 60 seconds, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2023/0201927 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinberg et al. (US 2023/0321917 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Wood et al. teaches the method of claim 6, except for, further comprising integrating the MTB model with an optimizer module to compute an absolute optimal printing sequence of islands and/or stripes for the upcoming layer based on thermal distribution of the current layer, and geometry of the upcoming layer.
Steinberg et al. teaches apparatuses, systems, and methods for making a component via additive manufacturing ([0047] “Directed Energy Deposition (DED), Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF), Electron Beam Melting (EBM), and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)”) with non-continuous deposition, software for toolpath generation takes a 3D model and fills it with a series of layers of hexagonally packed cells that create the complete volume of the given part, the cells are then sorted to build a toolpath consisting of a series of deposition events (i.e., each event corresponds to a single deposited cell), the cells are sorted to allow for rapid traversals between the discrete deposition events in an order that is designed to maximize deposition rates while residual stress and distortion are minimized by controlling heat input throughout the part [0046];
[0079] “The controller 36 (analogous to the claimed “optimizer module”) can then calculate the optimal deposition order and pattern of the deposited cells 40 to be deposited on the weld plate 38 (e.g., based on heuristics or other conditions such as those discussed further below).”
[0092] “the sorting process can be based upon a stack of heuristics,” that could be applied to the cell field, giving each cell a weighting factor, the weighting factors are combined per cell, and the system can select the next cell to be deposited by finding the maximum or minimum value depending upon the weighting factors' sense. “In this way, the sorting could take into account multiple factors such as, minimized distortion, maximized build rate, minimized thermal input, net cooling rates, maximum interpass temperature, etc., but also be flexible as the component is being built (e.g., as the temperature changes). Additionally, the software can provide a STEP, STL, or other solid output file that can then be used in later stages of processing. An advantageous manner for providing an ‘as-deposited’ model of the blank to a subsequent process that calculates machining tool paths is presented in FIG. 35.”
[0093] “the system may employ an algorithm or model to predict physical characteristics of the deposited cells and/or the component as a whole. Such physical characteristics include, without limitation, stress, strain, deformation, temperature, deposited cell thermal history, etc. The model can be a finite element analysis model based on the cellular mesh of the component to be produced.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method of Wood et al. by integrating the MTB model (MPC) with an optimizer module (Steinberg et al. controller 36) to compute an absolute optimal printing sequence of islands and/or stripes for the upcoming layer based on thermal distribution of the current layer, and geometry of the upcoming layer, as taught and suggested by the prior art, since Steinberg et al. teaches that “The controller 36 (analogous to the claimed “optimizer module”) can then calculate the optimal deposition order and pattern of the deposited cells 40 to be deposited on the weld plate 38 [0079] (e.g., based on heuristics or other conditions such as stress, strain, deformation, temperature, deposited cell thermal history, etc. [0093]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Severson et al. (US 2022/0114307 A1), teaches methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for an additive manufacturing heat transfer simulation based on graph theory-based computational thermal modeling approach for predicting the thermal history of titanium alloy parts made using the directed energy deposition metal AM process (Abstract, [0008]). [0042] From a thermal modeling perspective, the higher laser scan velocity and smaller layer thickness of LPBF are advantageous for reducing the computation time. Severson et al. discloses at [0044] that, “Theoretical verification with finite element (FE) modeling shows that the graph theory approach predicts the temperature distribution in LPBF parts within about 1/10th of the time required by commercial FE solutions and with errors fewer than 10%.” (see [0023, 0027, 0036, 0043 – 0044, 0049, 0067, 0070 – 0078, 0080, 0083, 0091, 0104 – 0106, 0109 – 0115]).
Reinsche et al. (NPL), “Feed forward control of thermal history in laser powder bed fusion: Toward physics-based optimization of processing parameters” (2022).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights