DETAILED ACTION
This application claims the priority and benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/534,980 filed on Aug. 28, 2023, and nonprovisional application Ser. No. 18,818,572 filed on Aug. 28, 2024, which are incorporated by reference in their entirety.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 06/29/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 03/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10 and 13-18 have been amended. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claims 2, 8-10, 13 and 16-18 have been amended to address the informalities, thus the objection of claims 2, 8-10, 13 and 16-18 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 14-16 have been amended to address the indefiniteness, and claim 6 has been canceled, thus the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-20 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 06/29/2026 in pages 7-9, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Victor et al. (EP 4,151,338A1- of record), and further in view of Buller et al. (US 2017/0341183).
The following action is a second non-final office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “an energy source” in line 2 of each claim to – the energy source --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor et al. (EP 4,151,338A1- of record) in view of Buller et al. (US 2017/0341183).
With respect to claim 1, Victor teaches a method for observing and controlling powder melting in 3-dimensional printing (“a method for forming an article, for example, a laser-melting method”, Figs. 29A-29F and 30) comprising:
receiving, by a 3-dimensional printer, input from a computing device (“a feedback subsystem 3005 in communication with the optical beam delivery device 3001 and the sensor 3003…The feedback subsystem 3005 comprises a memory 3007 configured to store data and/or instructions, and at least one processor 3009 configured to access the data and to execute instructions stored in the memory 3007.”, Pa [0106]),
initiating, by the 3-dimensional printer, melting of powder on a powder bed using an energy source (“the optical beam delivery device 3001”, Pa [0106]) (“forming a melt pool”, Pa [0099]; “laser powder bed”, Pa [0123]),
receiving, by the 3-dimensional printer, real-time feedback based on information from one or more optical sensors (“the at least one keyhole cavity property may be determined in real-time. For example, one or more sensors 3003-each capable of sensing at least one signature indicative of the keyhole cavity property-may be utilized for generating signals corresponding to the at least one keyhole cavity property. Such signals can be communicated to the feedback subsystem to determine whether a change and/or a rate of change in the keyhole cavity property is acceptable or unacceptable”, Pa [0110]; “from time-to-time, feedback subsystem 3005 may determine that a real-time sensed signature has remained unchanged or deviated from the predetermined/known/stored signature (e.g., beyond a particular range of tolerance(s))”, Pa [0113]),
adjusting output, by the 3-dimensional printer, based on feedback from the one or more optical sensors (“the feedback subsystem 3005 may generate a signal which is communicated to optical beam delivery device 3001 as an instruction to adjust the one or more beam characteristics… modifying of the at least one beam characteristic when the difference is greater than a predetermined threshold value”, Pa [0113]), and
sintering, by the 3-dimensional printer, based on the adjustments (“confining at least a portion of the modified one or more beam characteristics of the optical beam within one or more confinement regions of the second length of fiber”, Pa [0101]).
Victor shows that the optical sensor (“3003”) is off axis relative to the energy source (“3001”) (Fig. 30), but does not explicitly teach that one of the one or more optical sensors is positioned in a dark-field position relative to the energy source.
In the same field of endeavor, systems, apparatuses and methods for monitoring a three-dimensional printing process, Buller teaches that optical measurements can distinguish between the untransformed material and at least a portion of the 3D object, in some cases, the untransformed material can be a substantially diffuse reflector, the portion of the three-dimensional object can be a substantially specular reflector, the optical measurement can be a dark field and/or bright field measurement, the dark field and/or bright field measurement can isolate non-specular reflection (e.g., diffuse reflection) arising from the material bed, the dark field and/or bright field measurement can be processed to produce a map of spatial properties of the material bed (Pa [0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Victor with the teachings of Buller and perform the dark field measurement with the optical sensor in order to isolate non-specular reflection (e.g., diffuse reflection) arising from the material bed and to produce a map of spatial properties of the material bed.
With respect to claim 2, the combination as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the real-time feedback based on the one or more optical sensors includes receiving, by the 3-dimensional printer, an optical melting state from one of the one or more optical sensors (Victor: “the at least one melt pool property and/or the at least one keyhole cavity property may comprise a signature 3018 corresponding to an attribute of the melt pool property and/or of the keyhole cavity property. The signature 3018 may be sensed by sensor 3003.”, Pa [0111]; “The at least one melt pool property may be …at least one optical characteristic, at least one bulk characteristic, or any combination thereof.”, Pa [0108]) positioned in the dark- field position (Buller: “The surface can be measured with dark-field and/or light field illumination and a map and/or image of the illumination can be generated from signals detected during the dark-field and/or light field illumination.”, Pa [0201]).
With respect to claim 3, Victor as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that the optical melting state received by the 3-dimensional includes one of starting phase, valley, peak, or steady state (“its shape/geometry (e.g., a cross-sectional shape and/or an aspect ratio), surface contour (i.e., the extent of the melt pool's liquid region as defined by edges of the melt pool), density, viscosity, or any combination thereof.”, Pa [0108]).
With respect to claim 4, Victor as applied to claim 3 above further teaches that one of the one or more optical sensors is a camera (“Sensor 3003 may comprise at least one of a camera”, Pa [0111]).
With respect to claim 5, Buller as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that one of the one or more optical sensors is an X-ray imaging sensor (“The object detection system may comprise … X-ray”, Pa [0217]).
With respect to claim 7, Victor as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that one of the one or more optical sensors captures images of the powder (“The signature 3018 may be sensed by sensor 3003. Sensor 3003 may comprise at least one of a camera”, Pa [0111]).
With respect to claim 8, Victor as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that the images captured are used to determine the optical melting state of the powder in local regions of the powder (“the at least one melt pool property and/or the at least one keyhole cavity property may comprise a signature 3018 corresponding to an attribute of the melt pool property and/or of the keyhole cavity property. The signature 3018 may be sensed by sensor 3003.”, Pa [0111]; “The at least one melt pool property may be …at least one optical characteristic, at least one bulk characteristic, or any combination thereof.”, Pa [0108] and Fig. 30).
With respect to claim 9, Victor as applied to claim 8 above further teaches that the computing device interprets the optical melting state based on the images captured by one of the one or more optical sensors to determine the optical melting state (“At least one sensor 3003 generates at least one signal 3018' which can be communicated to feedback subsystem 3005. Processor 3009 can execute instructions (e.g., computer software) to correlate the at least one signal 3018' to a comparable value representative of the at least one keyhole cavity property. The comparable value may then be compared to stored values, such as from a library of values stored in a lookup table (e.g., a database) which may be stored in memory 3007 wherein the stored values correspond to predetermined, empirical or modeled at least one property of the keyhole cavity related to an amount of spatter that may be generated as the keyhole cavity moves, changes shape, and/or partially up to fully collapses.”, Pa [0113]).
With respect to claim 12, Victor as applied to claim 9 above further teaches that the computing device communicates the optical melting state to the 3-dimensional printer (“from time-to-time, feedback subsystem 3005 may determine that a real-time sensed signature has remained unchanged or deviated from the predetermined/known/ stored signature (e.g., beyond a particular range of tolerance(s)), in which case the feedback subsystem 3005 may generate a signal which is communicated to optical beam delivery device 3001 as an instruction to adjust the one or more beam characteristics.”, Pa [0113]).
With respect to claim 13, Victor as applied to claim 9 above further teaches that after determining the optical melting state of the powder, the computing device communicates one or more of the adjustments to be made to optimize the sintering by the 3-dimensional printer (“from time-to-time, feedback subsystem 3005 may determine that a real-time sensed signature has remained unchanged or deviated from the predetermined/known/stored signature (e.g., beyond a particular range of tolerance(s)), in which case the feedback subsystem 3005 may generate a signal which is communicated to optical beam delivery device 3001 as an instruction to adjust the one or more beam characteristics.”, Pa [0113]).
With respect to claim 14, Victor as applied to claim 8 above further teaches that one of the one or more optical sensors interprets the optical melting state of the powder based on the images captured to determine the optical melting state (“the at least one melt pool property and/or the at least one keyhole cavity property may comprise a signature 3018 corresponding to an attribute of the melt pool property and/or of the keyhole cavity property. The signature 3018 may be sensed by sensor 3003.”, Pa [0111]; “The at least one melt pool property may be …at least one optical characteristic, at least one bulk characteristic, or any combination thereof.”, Pa [0108] and Fig. 30; “At least one sensor 3003 generates at least one signal 3018' which can be communicated to feedback subsystem 3005. Processor 3009 can execute instructions (e.g., computer software) to correlate the at least one signal 3018' to a comparable value representative of the at least one keyhole cavity property.”, Pa [0113]).
With respect to claim 15, Victor as applied to claim 12 above further teaches that one of the one or more optical sensors communicates the optical melting state of the powder to the 3-dimensional printer (“At least one sensor 3003 generates at least one signal 3018' which can be communicated to feedback subsystem 3005…from time-to-time, feedback subsystem 3005 may determine that a real-time sensed signature has remained unchanged or deviated from the predetermined/known/ stored signature (e.g., beyond a particular range of tolerance(s)), in which case the feedback subsystem 3005 may generate a signal which is communicated to optical beam delivery device 3001 as an instruction to adjust the one or more beam characteristics.”, Pa [0113]).
With respect to claim 16, Victor as applied to claim 12 above further teaches that after determining the optical melting state of the powder, one of the one ore more optical sensors communicates one or more adjustments to the 3-dimensional printer to optimize the sintering (“At least one sensor 3003 generates at least one signal 3018' which can be communicated to feedback subsystem 3005…from time-to-time, feedback subsystem 3005 may determine that a real-time sensed signature has remained unchanged or deviated from the predetermined/known/ stored signature (e.g., beyond a particular range of tolerance(s)), in which case the feedback subsystem 3005 may generate a signal which is communicated to optical beam delivery device 3001 as an instruction to adjust the one or more beam characteristics.”, Pa [0113]).
With respect to claim 18, Victor as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that adjusting output includes changing the intensity of the energy source on the powder by the 3-dimensional printer (“modifying the at least one beam characteristic comprises… intensity distribution, … optical intensity”, Pa [0114]).
With respect to claim 20, Victor as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the 3-dimensional printer is a selective laser sintering printer (“an additive manufacturing process… laser powder bed”, Pa [0123] and Fig. 30).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor et al. (EP 4,151,338A1- of record) in view of Buller et al. (US 2017/0341183) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Avdovic et al. (US 2013/0052734 – of record).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Victor as applied to claim 9 above teaches that processor 3009 can execute instructions (e.g., computer software) to correlate the at least one signal 3018' to a comparable value representative of the at least one keyhole cavity property, the comparable value may then be compared to stored values, such as from a library of values stored in a lookup table (e.g., a database) which may be stored in memory 3007 wherein the stored values correspond to predetermined, empirical or modeled at least one property of the keyhole cavity related to an amount of spatter that may be generated as the keyhole cavity moves, changes shape, and/or partially up to fully collapses, accordingly, from time-to-time, feedback subsystem 3005 may determine that a real-time sensed signature has remained unchanged or deviated from the predetermined/known/stored signature (e.g., beyond a particular range of tolerance(s)) (Pa [0013]), but does not explicitly teach that the computing device interprets the images using artificial intelligence to determine the optical melting state based on images captured by one of the one or more optical sensors to determine the optical melting state.
In the same field of endeavor, a 3D printing method, Avdovic teaches that the computer program product contains a learning mechanism, wherein the learning mechanism reviews prior manufacturing instructions and/or prior results of the inventive method to provide new manufacturing instructions, for example, such learning mechanism can be based on some artificial intelligence (Pa [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Victor with the teachings of Avdovic and provide artificial intelligence as learning mechanism with the feedback subsystem in order to provide new manufacturing instructions based on the real-time sensed signature, since it has been held that Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor et al. (EP 4,151,338A1- of record) in view of Buller et al. (US 2017/0341183) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Geisen (US 2021/0039310 - of record).
With respect to claim 17, Victor as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that modifying the at least one beam characteristic comprises adjusting one or more of a beam diameter, divergence distribution, beam parameter product (BPP), intensity distribution, luminance, M2 value, numerical aperture (NA), optical intensity, power density, radial beam position, radiance or spot size, or any combination thereof (Pa [0114]), but is silent to changing a duration of the energy source.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for operating an SLM system, Geisen teaches that the level of power and the duration of action of the laser radiation to be selected depend on many properties of the component and of the powder, such as, for example, on surface characteristics, on an absorptivity for the laser radiation, on a thermal conductivity, on a particle size distribution and a packing density of the powder (Pa [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Victor with the teachings of Geisen and perform changing the level of duration of action of the laser radiation as well as power in order to obtain the desired properties of the component.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor et al. (EP 4,151,338A1- of record) in view of Buller et al. (US 2017/0341183) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crane et al. (US 10,843,415 - of record).
With respect to claim 19, Victor as applied to claim 1 above further teaches a method for forming an article, for example, using a laser powder bed (Pa [0123]), but does not explicitly teach that the 3-dimensional printer is a Large Area Projection Sintering printer.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing system and method, Crane teaches a system and method for dynamically processing of one or more layers of material utilizing a projection system that is sufficient to simultaneously process a large surface area of the material layer. In a particular embodiment, the material processing system is a sintering system which reduces the time required to create a component using additive manufacturing (co 1 li 66- co 2 li 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Victor with the teachings of Crane and substitute Crane’s system for Victor’s system in order to reduce the time required to create a component using additive manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights