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 without traverse of Group I, Species A4 and B3 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-6 is/are examined herein. Claim(s) 7-20 is/are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected groups and species.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent. In this case, the claimed invention is directed to a method with specific steps. However, the abstract fails to recite/summarize the claimed method steps. See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 and 6 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 4 recites the limitation “further comprising scanning the laser beam in a predetermined scanning pattern over the build platform to melt the layer of powder in a manner that corresponds the predetermined scanning pattern” which is indefinite. It is unclear how claim 4 further limits claim 1. It is also unclear if the “predetermined scanning pattern” of claim 4 is same or different from the “predetermined scanning pattern” of claim 1. The limitation has been examined below as best understood.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “at a first scanning angle with respect to the build platform, controlling the solid state optical deflector to form a two dimensional pattern such that the laser beam is directed in a circular pattern to form a spot size that is larger than a minimum spot size; and at a second scanning angle with respect to the build platform greater than the first scanning angle, controlling the solid state optical deflector to vary a deflection amount of the laser beam to form the circular pattern” which is indefinite. Is the “scanning angle with respect to the build platform” of claim 6 same or different from the “angle of incidence of the laser beam on the build platform” of claim 1? Is the “controlling the solid state optical deflector to form a two dimensional pattern such that the laser beam is directed in a circular pattern to form a spot size” of clam 6 same or different from “modulating the laser beam, via the solid state optical deflector, in a directionally dependent two-dimensional pattern to form a beam spot on the build platform having at least one of a similar size” of claim 1? Is the two dimensional pattern of claim 1 same or different from the two dimensional pattern of claim 6? Is the spot size of claim 6 same or different from the beam spot size of claim 1? The limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. The angles, controlling and modulating, two dimensional patterns, and spot sizes are the same or correlated in Applicant’s disclosure. The limitation has been examined below as best understood in view of Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “spot size that is larger than a minimum spot size” which is indefinite. The term “minimum spot size” makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The scope of the term “minimum spot size” is unclear. The conditions to obtain the “minimum spot size” are not clear. The limitation has been examined below as best understood in view of Applicant’s disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends because all of its limitations are explicitly found in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettit (US 20160288254).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Pettit discloses a method of additively manufacturing an object (P0003, P0089-0090), the method comprising:
depositing a layer of powder on a build platform (P0090, Fig. 5B; furthermore, selective laser melting implicitly includes this step: P0090);
generating a laser beam with a laser beam source (P0063-0064, Fig. 1; furthermore, selective laser melting implicitly includes this step: P0090);
directing the laser beam to a solid state optical deflector (directing the laser beam to an electro-optical deflector 4,5: P0063-0064, Fig. 1);
modulating the laser beam, via the solid state optical deflector, in a directionally dependent two-dimensional pattern to form a beam spot (the electro-optical deflector conditions/modulates the laser beam in a directionally dependent two-dimensional raster pattern 22 shown in Fig. 6 to form a two-dimensional/rectangular beam spot 7: P0035, 0063-0065, P0092-0094, Figs. 1 and 6) on the build platform having at least one of a similar size or shape at a plurality of different locations on the build platform based on an angle of incidence of the laser beam on the build platform (the two-dimensional/rectangular beam spot 7 on build surface 6 is described and/or shown as having
similar size and/or shape at a plurality of different locations on the build surface 6 based on an angle of incidence/scanning of the laser beam on the build surface: P0046, 0076-0079, 0087-0090, Figs. 1, 4, and 5B; wherein Fig. 4 shows this limitation); and
scanning the laser beam in a predetermined scanning pattern over the build platform to melt the layer of powder in a manner that corresponds to the predetermined scanning pattern (Abstract, P0046, P0087-0090, Fig. 5B; selective laser melting implicitly includes this step: P0090) for the benefit(s) of generating a uniform surface temperature profile (Abstract, P0046, 0048) and/or improving quality (P0003, 0029, 0122). Thus, Pettit and Applicant solve the same problem in substantially similar manner ([0028] and [0086] of Applicant’s published application).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kroll (US 20210354372).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Krol discloses a method of additively manufacturing an object (P0001; in particular, a selective laser melting method: Abstract, P0012-0013), the method comprising:
depositing a layer of powder on a build platform (P0013, 0060-0061, Fig. 1);
generating a laser beam (7) with a laser beam source (P0013, 0060-0062, Fig. 1);
directing the laser beam to a solid state optical deflector (directing the laser beam 7 to an electro-optical deflector 13: P0062-0064, Fig. 1);
modulating the laser beam, via the solid state optical deflector, in a directionally dependent two-dimensional pattern to form a beam spot on the build platform having at least one of a similar size or shape at a plurality of different locations on the build platform based on an angle of incidence of the laser beam on the build platform (the electro-optical deflector 13 modulates/deflects the laser beam in at least two axes in a directionally dependent two-dimensional pattern 31 to form a beam spot 19 on 1 having similar size or shape at a plurality of different locations on 1 based on an angle of incidence/deflection of the laser beam on 1: P0022, 0032-0034, 0062-0070, 0072-0076, 0082-0084, Figs. 1-2 and 5a), and
scanning the laser beam in a predetermined scanning pattern over the build platform to melt the layer of powder in a manner that corresponds to the predetermined scanning pattern (P0069-0078, Figs. 1-3) for the benefit(s) of improving irradiation patterns/sequences, increasing productivity, and/or quality (P0096).
Regarding claim 2, Krol further discloses wherein the solid state optical deflector (13) comprises a first solid state optical deflector (first optic crystal) and a second solid state optical deflector (second optic crystal), the method further comprising: modulating a first propagation direction of the laser beam in a first direction via the first solid state optical deflector; and modulating a second propagation direction of the laser beam in a second direction that is different from the first direction via the second solid state optical deflector (P0022, 0066).
Regarding claim 6, Krol further discloses at a first scanning angle with respect to the build platform, controlling the solid state optical deflector to modulate the laser beam in the two dimensional pattern such that the two dimensional pattern is a circular pattern to form the spot size (19) that is larger than a minimum spot size generated by the laser beam without the two dimensional pattern for the benefit(s) of increasing the effective spot size and/or melt pool (P0032-0034, 0062-0070, 0072-0076, 0082-0084, Figs. 1-2 and 5a); and
at a second scanning angle with respect to the build platform greater than the first scanning angle, controlling the solid state optical deflector to vary/modulate a deflection amount of the laser beam to form the circular pattern and the effective spot size (P0032-0035, 0082-0088, Figs. 2, 5a, and 6).
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettit (US 20160288254) or Kroll (US 20210354372) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wescott (US 20120132627).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Pettit or Kroll is silent about the type of laser beam generated.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of additively manufacturing objects, Wescott discloses the step of generating a pulsed laser beam for the benefit(s) of improving quality/resolution and/or the step of generating a continuous laser beam for the benefit(s) of improving efficiency (abstract, P0003, 0006, 0027, 0016).
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the prior art of record, knows that a pulsed laser beams and a continuous laser beam are the common, finite, and obvious variants of laser beams used in the art.
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 method of Pettit or Krol in view of Wescott by generating a pulsed laser beam as the laser beam for the benefit(s) of improving quality/resolution and/or by generating a continuous laser beam as the laser beam for the benefit(s) of improving efficiency as suggested by Wescott. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettit (US 20160288254) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kroll (US 20210354372).
Regarding claim 2, Pettit fails to disclose wherein the solid state optical deflector comprises a first solid state optical deflector and a second solid state optical deflector, the method further comprising: modulating a first propagation direction of the laser beam in a first direction via the first solid state optical deflector; and modulating a second propagation direction of the laser beam in a second direction that is different from the first direction via the second solid state optical deflector.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of additively manufacturing objects, Kroll discloses a selective laser melting comprising the steps of depositing a layer of powder on a build platform (P0060-0061, Fig. 1); generating a laser beam (7) with a laser beam source (P0060-0062, Fig. 1); directing the laser beam to a solid state optical deflector (directing the laser beam 7 to an electro-optical deflector 13: P0063-0064, Fig. 1); modulating the laser beam, via the solid state optical deflector, in a directionally dependent two-dimensional pattern to form a beam spot on the build platform having at least one of a similar size or shape at a plurality of different locations on the build platform based on an angle of incidence of the laser beam on the build platform (the electro-optical deflector 13 modulates/deflects the laser beam in at least two axes in a directionally dependent two-dimensional pattern 31 to form a beam spot 19 on 1 having similar size or shape at a plurality of different locations on 1 based on an angle of incidence/deflection of the laser beam on 1: P0022, 0032-0034, 0062-0070, 0072-0076, 0082-0084, Figs. 1-2 and 5a), and scanning the laser beam in a predetermined scanning pattern over the build platform to melt the layer of powder in a manner that corresponds to the predetermined scanning pattern (P0069-0078, Figs. 1-3) for the benefit(s) of improving irradiation patterns/sequences, increasing productivity, and/or quality (P0096). Kroll further discloses the technique of including a first solid state optical deflector (first optic crystal) and a second solid state optical deflector (second optic crystal), the method further comprising: modulating a first propagation direction of the laser beam in a first direction via the first solid state optical deflector; and modulating a second propagation direction of the laser beam in a second direction that is different from the first direction via the second solid state optical deflector for the benefit(s) of ensuring deflectability of the laser beam in two dimensions (P0022, 0066).
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 method of Pettit in view Krol by including a first solid state optical deflector and a second solid state optical deflector, modulating a first propagation direction of the laser beam in a first direction via the first solid state optical deflector and modulating a second propagation direction of the laser beam in a second direction that is different from the first direction via the second solid state optical deflector for the benefit(s) of ensuring deflectability of the laser beam in two dimensions as suggested by Krol. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 6, Pettit further discloses at a first scanning angle with respect to the build platform, controlling the solid state optical deflector to modulate the laser beam in the two dimensional pattern such that the two dimensional pattern is a raster pattern (22) to form the spot size (7) that is larger than a minimum spot size generated by the laser beam without the two dimensional pattern for the benefit(s) of increasing the effective spot size (P0035, P0092-0094, Figs. 1, 4, and 6); and
at a second scanning angle with respect to the build platform greater than the first scanning angle, controlling the solid state optical deflector to vary/modulate a deflection amount of the laser beam to form the raster pattern (21) and the effective spot size (P0032-0035, 0082-0088, Figs. 1, 4, 5b, and 6).
Pettit differs from the claimed invention in that Pettit discloses a raster pattern instead of circular pattern.
However, Kroll further discloses the technique of using a circular pattern (31) as the suitable pattern for the benefit(s) forming a circular beam spot (19), increasing the effective spot size and/or melt pool (P0032-0034, 0062-0070, 0072-0076, 0082-0084, Figs. 1-2 and 5a) and improving irradiation patterns/sequences, increasing productivity, and/or quality (P0096).
Since Pettit teaches that a circular effective beam spot is an obvious variant to the rectangular effective spot (P0065-0068, Figs. 2A-C) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known/recognized that a circular pattern is the easiest pattern to form the circular effective spot, 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 method of Pettit in view Krol by using a circular pattern instead of the raster pattern as the two dimensional pattern for the benefit(s) forming a circular beam spot, increasing the effective spot size and/or melt pool and/or improving irradiation patterns/sequences, increasing productivity, and/or quality as suggested by Krol. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 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.
Kusaka (US 20200398340) discloses that laser sources generating a pulsed laser beam or a continuous laser beam are the most common and/or obvious variants of laser sources in the art (P0026).
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