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
The amendments to claims 12 and 13 overcome the 112(b) rejection, therefore that rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed September 24, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 8, 20, and 21 under 35 USC § 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Chern et al. US 2023/0042159 A1.
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.
Claims 8 and 12-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luick et al. US 11,890,807 B1 in view of Chern et al. US 2023/0042159 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Luick discloses an additive manufacturing system for forming an in situ model of a part (Col. 3, Line 34) from a working material having a plurality of powder particles (Col. 3, Lines 34-35), the additive manufacturing system comprising: a powder bed supporting the working material (Col. 4, Lines 17-22); an illumination system configured to illuminate the working material with an irradiation profile (Fig. 1, Ref. 130); a controller configured to cause the illumination system to follow a working path while illuminating the working material with the irradiation profile (Col. 13, Lines 61-67), the irradiation profile including a plurality of spaced apart portions which each selectively heat the working material to a plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures (Col. 7, Lines 7-10), the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures all being lower than a boiling point of the working material (Col. 7 Lines 1-4 wherein the pre-heating prevents vaporization), the plurality of spaced apart portions including a first subset pre-heating a portion of the working material while keeping a temperature of the portion of the working material below a melting point of the portion of the working material (Col. 6, Lines 29-35); and a third subset post-heating the portion of the working material while keeping the temperature of the portion of the working material below the melting point (Col. 6, Lines 37-40, “the third energy beam”); and at least one camera oriented to observe the portion of the working material (Col. 8, Lines 37-40); wherein the controller is configured to analyze image data provided by the camera while the illumination system follows the working path (Col. 8, Lines 37-40), wherein the spaced apart portions of the irradiation profile include (a) a first portion that heats the working material to a first peak temperature of the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures 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 of the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures being higher than the melting point of the working material (Col. 6, Lines 35-38 “the second energy beam”) and lower than the boiling point of the working material (Col. 7 Lines 1-4 wherein the pre-heating prevents vaporization), and(d) a fourth portion that heats the working material to a fourth peak temperature of the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures being less than the third peak temperature (Col. 6, Lines 37-40, “the third energy beam”), wherein the first portion and the second portion are part of the first subset, the third portion is part of the second subset, and the fourth portion is part of the third subset, as the irradiation profile is moved along the working path the portion of the working material 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 subset fusing the portion of the working material while keeping the temperature of the portion of the working material below the boiling point of the working material, and a second portion that heats the working material to a second peak temperature of the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures being higher than the first peak temperature and lower than the melting point of the working material.
However in the same field of endeavor, Chern teaches a second subset fusing the portion of the working material while keeping the temperature of the portion of the working material below the boiling point of the working material, and a second portion that heats the working material to a second peak temperature of the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures being higher than the first peak temperature and lower than the melting point of the working material (Para. 9 describes the second preheat temperature as higher than the first preheat temperature).
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Chern to help create the specific geometry of the component being manufactured.
Regarding claim 12, Luick discloses wherein the first peak temperature is in the range of 40% to 80% of the melting point of the working material, the second peak temperature is in the range of 70% to 95% of the melting point of the working material, and the fourth peak temperature is in the range of 50% to 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 13, Luick discloses wherein the first peak temperature is at least 50% of the melting point of the working material, the second peak temperature is at least 90% the melting point of the working material, and the fourth peak temperature is at least 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 14, Luick discloses wherein the illumination system includes a plurality of laser assemblies (Fig. 2B; Col 5 Line 62 through Col. 6 Line 14 wherein the laser assemblies are described).
Regarding claim 15, 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 16, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Luick discloses wherein the first power profile mode is a doughnut mode, the second power profile mode and the fourth power profile mode are each a flat top mode, and the third power profile mode is a Gaussian mode (Col. 7, Lines 11-24 wherein the power densities are controlled to heat the material as needed).
Regarding claim 21, Luick discloses an additive manufacturing system (Col. 1, Lines 14-16) for forming an in situ model of a part from a working material having a plurality of powder particles (Col. 1, Lines 14-16), the additive manufacturing system comprising: a powder bed supporting the working material (Fig. 1, Ref. 181; Col. 1, Lines 20-25); an illumination system configured to illuminate the working material with an irradiation profile (Fig. 1, Ref. 130); a controller configured to cause the illumination system to follow a working path while illuminating the working material with the irradiation profile (Col. 3, Lines 46-50), the irradiation profile including a plurality of spaced apart portions which each selectively heat the working material to a plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures (Col. 7, Lines 7-10), the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures all being lower than a boiling point of the working material (Col. 7 Lines 1-4 wherein the pre-heating prevents vaporization), the plurality of spaced apart portions including a first subset pre-heating a portion of the working material while keeping a temperature of the portion of the working material below a melting point of the portion of the working material (Col. 6, Lines 29-35), and a third subset post-heating the portion of the working material while keeping the temperature of the portion of the working material below the melting point (Col. 6, Lines 37-40, “the third energy beam”); and at least one camera oriented to observe the portion of the working material (Col. 8, Lines 37-40); wherein the controller is configured to analyze image data provided by the at least one camera while the illumination system follows the working path (Col. 8, Lines 37-40), wherein the at least one camera is aligned with an axis of the illumination system directed towards the powder bed (Fig. 4B, Ref. 140b wherein the sensor includes a camera).
While Luick describes a fourth beam that provides additional functionality, it does not specifically disclose a second subset fusing the portion of the working material while keeping the temperature of the portion of the working material below the boiling point of the working material, and a second portion that heats the working material to a second peak temperature of the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures being higher than the first peak temperature and lower than the melting point of the working material.
However in the same field of endeavor, Chern teaches a second subset fusing the portion of the working material while keeping the temperature of the portion of the working material below the boiling point of the working material, and a second portion that heats the working material to a second peak temperature of the plurality of spaced apart peak temperatures being higher than the first peak temperature and lower than the melting point of the working material (Para. 9 describes the second preheat temperature as higher than the first preheat temperature).
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Chern to help create the specific geometry of the component being manufactured.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luick et al. US 11,890,807 B1 in view of Chern et al. US 2023/0042159 A1 and Burris et al. US 2014/0271328 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Luick does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to adjust at least one of the plurality of spaced apart portions of the irradiation profile based on the image data while the illumination system follows the working path to improve a characteristic of the in situ model.
However in the same field of endeavor, Burris teaches wherein the controller is further configured to adjust at least one of the plurality of spaced apart portions of the irradiation profile based on the image data while the illumination system follows the working path to improve a characteristic of the in situ model (Para. 48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Burris to customize the laser interaction profiles.
Regarding claim 18, Luick does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one camera is aligned with an axis of the illumination system directed towards the powder bed.
However in the same field of endeavor, Burris teaches wherein the at least one camera is aligned with an axis of the illumination system directed towards the powder bed (Para. 69).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Burris to customize the laser interaction profiles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luick et al. US 11,890,807 B1 in view of Chern et al. US 2023/0042159 A1 and Burris et al. US 2014/0271328 A1 and in further view of Milner et al. US 2018/0143147 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Luick does not specifically disclose wherein the characteristic of the in situ model is a porosity of the in situ model.
However in the same field of endeavor, Milner teaches wherein the characteristic of the in situ model is a porosity of the in situ model (Para. 61 “vacancy defects”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Milner to provide a feedback signal and guide the processing beam for high precision.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luick et al. US 11,890,807 B1 in view of Chern et al. US 2023/0042159 A1 and Milner et al. US 2018/0143147 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Luick and Chern disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 8 as detailed above. However Luick does not disclose monitoring with the additive manufacturing system the in situ model with the at least one camera as the in situ model is produced by the additive manufacturing system; and analyzing with the additive manufacturing system image data produced by the at least one camera during the production of the in situ model to determine a quality of the in situ model to a CAD model.
In the same field of endeavor, Milner teaches monitoring with the additive manufacturing system the in situ model with the at least one camera as the in situ model is produced by the additive manufacturing system (Para. 33); and analyzing with the additive manufacturing system image data produced by the at least one camera during the production of the in situ model to determine a quality of the in situ model to a CAD model (Para. 33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Milner to provide a feedback signal and guide the processing beam for high precision.
Regarding claim 20, Luick does not specifically disclose providing a certification for the in situ model produced by the additive manufacturing system when the quality of the in situ model is above a quality threshold.
However in the same field of endeavor, Milner teaches providing a certification for the in situ model produced by the additive manufacturing system when the quality of the in situ model is above a quality threshold (Para. 33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Luick with Milner to provide a feedback signal and guide the processing beam for high precision.
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 J BABINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday 7:00 am-11:00 am and Tuesday 8:00 am-3:30 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.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761