Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 04/08/26 has been entered. Claims 24 – 26, 29 – 30, 33 – 34, 36 – 37, 39 and 41 – 45 remain pending and under examination.
The amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 112(b).
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 24 – 26, 29 – 30, 33 – 34, 36 – 37, 39, and 41 – 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walrand (WO2017108868, espacenet translation) in view of Farinia (NPL, 2015) and in further view of Meyer (US2015/0054193) and Abe (WO2017/221912, espacenet translation) and additionally in view of Jennissen (US2014/0343687) with evidence provided by Quintana (“Laser Micro-Milling and Drilling…”, NPL, 2008)
For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that the US pg-pub of Walrand (US2019/0001560) appears to share an applicant with the pending application.
Regarding claims 24 – 26, Walrand teaches an additive manufacturing machine and use thereof [title, 0042]. Walrand teaches that the machine/method include a substrate [Fig 1, “5”] with a powder dispensing system that includes dispensing powder on a sliding tray [Fig 1, “8”, Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of dispensing powder onto a mobile powder receiving surface. Walrand teaches/shows that the tray slides in front of and outside of the trajectory of a powder spreading device [Abstract, Fig 1, “6”], meeting the claimed limitation of at least one powder spreading device that moves in a longitudinal direction over build platform and that the mobile powder receiving surface comprises a slide that moves between retracted and deployed positions. Walrand teaches that the tray is in a groove [Fig 1, “10”; 0048] and that an injector is positioned above it [Fig 1, “9”; 0056], meeting the claimed limitation of at least one powder distribution device and the slide moves in a groove in a working plane adjacent the build platform. Wherein the powder spreading device will deposit a layer of powder on the build surface [Fig 1, 0022].
Walrand does not teach the powder sized used. Walrand does not teach treating the build platform/plate as claimed inside the additive manufacturing machine.
Farinia teaches information regarding powder bed additive manufacturing (i.e., the process/machine of Walrand). Farinia teaches that a powder size of 10 – 50µm (which falls within the claimed range) is typical for laser beam powder-bed additive manufacturing [Page 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a powder size of 10 – 50µm, as disclosed in Farinia, in additive method/machine of Walrand to achieve predictable results. Both are directed to powder bed additive manufacturing and Farinia teaches that the powder size distribution is typical of the process. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Farinia to Walrand to achieve predictable results.
Walrand does not teach treating the build platform/plate as claimed inside the additive manufacturing machine.
Meyer teaches a method of additive manufacturing and substrate thereof in a powder bed additive manufacturing system [Title, 0045]. Meyer discloses that the substrate/build surface can contain slits which extend from the surface to part-way through the thickness of the substrate [0051], wherein the formation of slits would increase the overall surface roughness of the substrate surface (meeting the claimed limitation of increasing the roughness of at least one region).
Meyer teaches that the slits may take the form of a grid structure [0025, 0059, Fig 5.], meeting the claimed limitation of a plurality of juxtaposed lines and feature (I) of a first and second group of juxtaposed lines that are intersecting. The grid is aligned substantially with a diagonal of the build surface [0026, Fig 5.], meeting the claimed limitation of the plurality of lines extended in a transverse direction to a powder spreader and that is not perpendicular to the longitudinal (roller) direction.
Lastly, Meyer states that the slits are advantageous for allowing high strain deformation in the plane of the build surface while retaining high stiffness in the direction of the build [0053]. This allows the part to shrink in the plane of the build surface and avoid the build-up of large residual stresses [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method/machine of Walrand with the substrate design as disclosed by Meyer. Walrand and Meyer are directed to the same field of endeavor and method of powder bed additive manufacturing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Meyer to be pertinent to the invention of Walrand and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the build plate design to Walrand. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the build substrate as discussed by Meyer and in order to attain the benefits disclosed.
Walrand in view of Meyer (specifically Meyer) teaches that the slits can be formed by laser cutting [0053], but does not explicitly teach that the laser cutting is performed inside the additive manufacturing machine. Walrand in view of Meyer does not explicitly disclose the formation of protuberances at least 10 µm in height.
Abe teaches a method of powder bed fusion in an additive manufacturing method [Fig 6, Fig 9, 0014]. Abe teaches a surface roughening treatment performed on the surface of the build plate by using a laser including the laser beam used for forming the solidified layer (creating the pattern inside the machine for additive manufacturing, and the limitation of claim 25 of using the energy or heat source that is subsequently used to melt the powder) [0033, Fig. 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the same laser beam to perform both the substrate/build plate modification and additive manufacturing as taught by Abe, in the method of Walrand as-modified. Given Walrand, Farinia, Abe and Meyer are directed to the same field of endeavor of powder bed-based additive manufacturing including using a laser as the energy source, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Walrand, Farinia, and Meyer, with Abe to achieve predictable results. Additionally, using the same energy source/laser as that which is used for the build process reduces the number of components required in the machine/process. A benefit that an ordinarily skilled artisan with ordinary creativity would appreciate. Wherein Walrand and Meyer teach that the machine used has a laser head with a laser beam used to melt the powder, meeting the claimed limitation of claim 26 [Walrand, 0044; Meyer, 0045].
Walrand as-modified does not explicitly disclose the formation of at least one pair of protuberances at least 10 µm in height.
However, as evidenced by Quintana, when laser ablation is performed a “recast layer” is formed on either side of the trench (i.e. pair of protuberances) formed from laser ablation [Fig 1].
As can be seen in Fig 1, the recast layer is a protrusion that protrudes above the original surface level of the surface being modified, as such protrusions would have a “height” above the original surface.
In the interest of the clarity of the record and making the findings of fact apparent, the examiner notes Applicant’s specification at Paragraph 0039 which describes:
-“In more detail, at the point of impact of the beam on the build platform 24, the material of the build platform is melted and pushed back by the energy of the beam.
This results in a pattern M formed in the upper surface 40 by at least one protuberance P, two in the example shown in FIG. 2. These protuberances are formed from the material of the build platform. These protuberances P are raised above the upper surface 40 and they extend in at least a direction parallel to the upper surface 40 of the build platform 24.”
As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that in performing laser ablation to form the pattern(s) of Meyer (in the method of Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, and Abe), the protrusions that project above the build surface would be formed as a natural result, absent evidence to the contrary.
To this, Jennissen teaches a method of producing a microstructure surface on a substrate [0030]. Jennissen teaches providing a blank and acting upon with energy-rich radiation to form a pattern on the blank [0031, 0032]. Furthermore, Jennissen teaches that this can be performed by laser ablation (i.e. a form of laser cutting) [0030, 0032]. Additionally, Jennissen teaches that the pattern formed can include depressions (i.e., similar to the slits of Meyer) as well as protrusion (i.e., protuberances) on either side of the depressions/slits [Fig 2A-2D]. Jennissen states that the protrusions’ height can be controlled to be in a range of 1 – 80 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range [0023, 0044, Fig 2A – 2D].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the laser beam in the method of Walrand as-modified and performed laser ablation to create the pattern, as taught by Jennissen, and to have controlled the height of the protuberances/protrusions which naturally form along the edge to a range of 1 – 80 µm. Given that Walrand, Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen are directed additive manufacturing and Meyer as well as Jennissen teaches forming a pattern on/in a build plate using a laser, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the laser ablation of Jennissen as the machining technique to achieve predictable results. Moreover, given that laser ablation naturally results in protuberances/protrusions along the edge, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in controlling their height to the protrusion height range disclosed by Jennissen.
Additionally, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennison (or Quintana) does not explicitly state that the protrusion(s) retain powder grains. However, given that the protrusions of Walrand as-modified would extend above the surface of the upper layer of the build plate, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the protrusion(s) would inherently impede the movement of the powder particles, thus meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “retaining powder grains on the upper surface utilizing the at least one protuberance”. As such, the burden shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess said characteristic (MPEP 2112).
Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Regarding claims 29 and 33 – 34, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen teaches the invention as applied in claim 24. Meyer teaches a grid structure which has first and second groups of juxtaposed lines intersecting each other that are straight, parallel, and regularly spaced apart of feature (I) of claim 29 [0025, 0059, Fig 5.] (see Fig shown below). Wherein the lines intersecting each other are perpendicular, meeting the claimed limitation of claim 33, and continuous, meeting claim 34.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen teaches the invention as applied in claim 29. Meyer teaches that the slits are spaced ~3 mm apart [0052], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 36 – 37, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen teaches the invention as applied in claim 24. Meyer teaches that the grid is aligned substantially with a diagonal of the build surface (which would be 0 – 90 degrees) [0026], which overlaps with the claimed range. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality (See MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Moreover, Meyer does not explicitly teach the degree of inclination with the respect to the longitudinal direction, given that the slits are designed to produce protrusions [0025] that help reduce the build-up of large residual stress by allowing the part to shrink along the plane [0016] the slits pattern on the build plate is matter of design choice based on the part and its build orientation/angle and furthermore, changes to size, shape, and/or proportion is a prima facie case of obviousness, absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality (MPEP 2144.04 IV A,B).
Regarding claim 39, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen teaches the invention as applied in claim 24. Meyer meets the limitations of feature (I), with the other features (II-IV) being optional in claim 24 and 39. As such, Meyer meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 39
Regarding claim 41, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen teaches the invention as applied in claim 24. Meyer meets the limitations of feature (I), with the other features (II-IV) being optional in claim 24 and 41. As such, Meyer meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 41.
PNG
media_image2.png
335
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen teaches the invention as applied in claim 24. Meyer shows in Fig 4 (provided below) that the pattern/slits/protrusions can be provided on the entire build plate, meeting the claim 42.
Regarding claims 43 – 45, Walrand in view of Farinia, Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen teaches the method of claim 24.
Warland teaches an additive manufacturing machine that includes a build platform [title; Fig 1, “5”]. The machine has a powder spreader [Fig 1, “6”] and has a laser for melting the powder material [0044], meeting the claimed limitations of claim 43. Wherein the build platform is used as a build platform for additive manufacturing that involves spreading a layer of powder and forming a component with an energy source [0044], meeting the claimed limitation powder bed-based additive manufacturing of claim 45.
Additionally, Walrand in view of Meyer, Abe, and Jennissen (in particular Abe) teaches that the light beam used to selectively form a layer (i.e. print the object) is also used to shape/groove the substrate/build plate prior to this layer formation [Abe, 0033]. As such, it is implied that the build platform is placed in the machine possessing the laser prior to preparing the build platform with the pattern (meeting the claimed limitation of claim 44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the office has made conclusory assertions of fact (pages 3 – 4) and that because the office has made conclusory assertions based on Official Notice, the applicant traverses and request documentary evidence (Page 5). This is not persuasive because the Office has not relied upon Official Notice in the rejection. As stated in MPEP 2143, Office personnel make appropriate findings of facts and reasoned explanations to support a rejection that the invention as claimed would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the relevant time. The citations provided on pages 3 – 4 are explicit analyses to support the prima facie case of obviousness with reasoned explanations.
Applicant argues that the prior art combination does not teach features (II – IV)(Page 6). This is not found persuasive to distinguish the art because claim 24 explicitly states that the pattern comprises one of the following features of I – IV. The prior art combination relied upon above teaches the pattern feature (I). As such, the prior art combination meets the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues that the protrusions of Meyer do not extend above the build surface (Page 7). However, the limitation is disclosed by the combination of the prior art. Wherein Jennissen teaches forming a pattern on/in a build plate of a powder bed additive manufacturing machine and that the pattern is formed by laser ablation. Jennissen further teaches that protrusions above the build surface are formed on either side of the depressions/slits [Fig 2A – 2D] and that they can range from 1 – 80 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range [0023, 0044, Fig 2A – 2D]. As such, Jennissen (like Meyer) is directed to pattern formation on a build plate using a laser. Moreover, as evidenced by Quintana, when laser ablation is performed a “recast layer” is naturally formed on either side of the trench (i.e. a pair of protuberances) from laser ablation [Fig 1 of Quintana].
That is, the formation of the pattern in the build plate via laser ablation disclosed by the prior art combination would naturally form protrusions on either side due to a recast layer. This is the same occurrence described in Applicant’s specification at Paragraph 0039 which describes:
-“In more detail, at the point of impact of the beam on the build platform 24, the material of the build platform is melted and pushed back by the energy of the beam.
This results in a pattern M formed in the upper surface 40 by at least one protuberance P, two in the example shown in FIG. 2. These protuberances are formed from the material of the build platform. These protuberances P are raised above the upper surface 40 and they extend in at least a direction parallel to the upper surface 40 of the build platform 24.”
As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that in performing laser ablation to form the pattern(s) of Meyer (in the prior art combination), the protrusions that project above the build surface would be formed as a natural result and Jennissen provides a specific range (1 – 80 µm) to which they are controlled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights