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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s traversal focuses on the limitation of “wherein as the irradiation profiled is moved along the working path a portion of the working material along the working path sequentially encounters the first portion, the second portion, the third portion, and the fourth portion.” This limitation was met by Luick, which applicant does not traverse.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claims 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luick et al. US 11,890,807 B1 in view of Puidokas et al. US 11077512 B2.
Regarding claim 20, Luick discloses a method for additive manufacturing (Col. 1, Lines 14-16) of an in situ model of a part from a working material having a plurality of powder particles (Col. 1, Lines 14-16), the method (Col. 1, Lines 14-16) comprising the steps of: producing an irradiation profile with an illumination system; directing the irradiation profile towards the working material (Col. 3, Lines 15-18); and moving the irradiation profile along a working path (Fig. 3, Ref. 141) at the working material to fuse adjacent particles of the working material along the working path together (Col. 4, Lines 24-28), the irradiation profile including (a) a first portion that heats the working material to a first peak temperature lower than a melting point of the working material (Col. 6, Lines 29-35),(c) a third portion that heats the working material to a third peak temperature being higher than the melting point of the working material (Col. 6, Lines 35-38 “the second energy beam”), and(d) a fourth portion that heats the working material to a fourth peak temperature being less than the third peak temperature (Col. 6, Lines 37-40, “the third energy beam”), wherein as the irradiation profile is moved along the working path a portion of the working material along the working path sequentially encounters the first portion, the second portion, the third portion, and the fourth portion (Col. 4, Lines 22-26).
While Luick describes a fourth beam that provides additional functionality, it does not specifically disclose a second portion that heats the working material to a second peak temperature being higher than the first peak temperature and lower than the melting point of the working material.
However is the same field of endeavor, Puidokas teaches a second portion that heats the working material to a second peak temperature being higher than the first peak temperature and lower than the melting point of the working material (Fig. 3, T2; Col. 7, Lines 19-27).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Puidokas to heat the material to a ductile state, but below the melting point, to reduce stress in the material. A person of ordinary skill would apply this temperature to the fourth beam of additional functionality of Luick to create a homogenous temperature throughout the material.
Regarding claim 21, Luick discloses wherein a first gap is provided between the first portion and the second portion, the working material heated by the first portion cools during the first gap, a second gap is provided between the second portion and the third portion, the working material heated by the second portion cools during the second gap, and a third gap is provided between the third portion and the fourth portion, the working material heated by the third portion cools during the third gap (Col. 22, Lines 11-18 wherein the beams wait at designated positions).
Regarding claim 22, Luick discloses wherein the first peak temperature is in the range of about 40% to about 80% of the melting point of the working material, the second peak temperature is in the range of about 70% to about 95% of the melting point of the working material, and the fourth peak temperature is in the range of about 50% to about 98% of the melting point of the working material (Col. 7, Lines 11-24 wherein the temperature is controlled as needed for the use case).
Regarding claim 23, Luick discloses wherein the first peak temperature is at least about 50% of the melting point of the working material, the second peak temperature is at least about 90% the melting point of the working material, and the fourth peak temperature is at least about 90% the melting point of the working material (Col. 7, Lines 11-24 wherein the temperature is controlled as needed for the use case).
Regarding claim 24, Luick discloses wherein as the irradiation profile is moved along the working path the first portion has a first time duration irradiating a first portion of the working material, the second portion has a second time duration irradiating the first portion of the working material, the third portion has a third time duration irradiating the first portion of the working material, the fourth portion has a fourth time duration irradiating the first portion of the working material, each of the first time duration, the second time duration, and the fourth time duration being longer than the third time duration (Col. 18, Lines 41-49 wherein the time of the laser applied is altered to meet the needs of the application).
Regarding claim 25, Luick discloses wherein the third time duration is up to about 50% of the first time duration, the third time duration is up to about 50% of the second time duration, and the third time duration is up to about 25% of the fourth time duration (Col. 18, Lines 41-49 wherein the time of the laser applied is altered to meet the needs of the application).
Regarding claim 26, Luick discloses wherein at least two of the first peak temperature, the second peak temperature, the third peak temperature, and the fourth peak temperature are independently adjustable (Col. 7, Lines 11-12 wherein the energy density of each beam is controlled).
Regarding claim 27, Luick discloses wherein at least two of the first time duration, the second time duration, the third time duration, and the fourth time duration are independently adjustable (Col. 18, Lines 41-49 wherein the time of the laser applied is altered to meet the needs of the application).
Regarding claim 28, Luick discloses the step of providing the irradiation profile with a plurality of laser assemblies (Fig. 2B; Col 5 Line 62 through Col. 6 Line 14 wherein the laser assemblies are described).
Regarding claim 29, Luick discloses wherein the first portion of the of the irradiation profile is provided with a first laser assembly of the plurality of laser assemblies, the second portion of the of the irradiation profile is provided with a second laser assembly of the plurality of laser assemblies, the third portion of the of the irradiation profile is provided with a third laser assembly of the plurality of laser assemblies, and the fourth portion of the of the irradiation profile is provided with a fourth laser assembly of the plurality of laser assemblies (Col 5 Line 62 through Col. 6 Line 14 wherein the laser assemblies are described).
Regarding claim 30, Luick discloses wherein the first portion of the irradiation profile has a first power profile mode, the second portion of the irradiation profile has a second power profile mode, the third portion of the irradiation profile has a third power profile mode, and the fourth portion of the irradiation profile has a fourth power profile mode, at least one of the first power profile mode, the second power profile mode, and the fourth power profile mode is different than the third power profile mode (Col. 7, Lines 11-12 wherein the energy density of each beam is controlled).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights