hinDETAILED 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 Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 01/02/2026, the previous rejections have been maintained and updated to reflect the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 13-14, 19-20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180281112 (“Roerig et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20170165752 (“Buller et al.”).
Regarding claim 1, Roerig et al. teaches a method of additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object ([0006], “a method for additive manufacturing an object”), the method comprising:
determining an irradiation regime ([0033], “a set of computer-executable instructions 108O (herein also referred to as ‘code 108O’) defining object 102 to be physically generated by AM printer 106 “; [0034], “control system 104 executes code 108S and 108O, dividing object 102 into a series of thin slices that assembles using AM printer 106 in successive layers of material.”) for a plurality of object elements (Fig. 6, 102A & 102B) of a layer of an object to be additively manufactured with an additive manufacturing machine (106), the plurality of object elements comprising a core region (Fig. 6, 200A&200B), and a shell region (Fig. 6, 134), wherein the shell region at least partially surrounds the core region (Fig. 6, 134 surrounds 137); and
forming the plurality of object elements at least in part by irradiating a layer of a build plane with one or more irradiation devices of the additive manufacturing machine ([0038], “melting beam sources 134, 135, 136, 137 to sequentially melt layers of metal powder on build platform 132 to generate object 102”);
wherein the irradiation regime for at least one of the plurality of object elements comprises a core-shell irradiation regime and/or wherein the irradiation regime for at least one of the plurality of object elements comprises a core-shell apportioned irradiation regime (Fig. 8, [0039] internal sections 200A and 200B correspond to a core and subsections 204B, 204C, 204E correspond to a shell, with these regions respectively apportioned according to multiple or singular beam sources that reach the core and/or shell regions); and
wherein the core region and the shell region have substantially balanced irradiation times ([0045], Melting beam sources may be load balanced within each layer).
Roerig et al. further discloses generating a dense microstructure internally of the three-dimensional object ([0028]).
Roerig et al. is silent on wherein the irradiation regime differentiates a material property a first contiguous surface of the shell region relative to the material property of a second contiguous surface of the core region, wherein the first contiguous surface at least partially surrounds the second contiguous surface.
In the analogous art of additive manufacturing, Buller et al. discloses wherein the irradiation regime differentiates a material property of one region relative to the material property of another region ([0226] tiling energy flux that subsequently heats and/or transforms at least portions of the first layer of hardened material may cause an alteration of the microstructure such as material density and material porosity). Buller et al. further discloses it is desired to control the microstructure of a 3D object to form a specific microstructure, or varied material microstructures in one or more specific portions of the object ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Roerig et al. to differentiate the material properties of the different regions in order to achieve the desired microstructure of the 3D printed object, as suggested by both Roerig et al. and Buller et al.
By this modification of Roerig et al., the examiner notes that the further limitation of the first and second contiguous surfaces of the shell region and the core region having the differentiated material property, wherein the first contiguous surface at least partially surrounds the second contiguous surface is met by the combination, since the shell region partially surrounds the core region, the regions are touching, and modification by Roerig et al. results in the regions having a material property that is differentiated between the shell region and core region, which would include the respective contiguous surfaces of each region.
Regarding claim 2, Roerig et al. teaches irradiating the core region with a first energy beam emitted from a first irradiation device; and irradiating the shell region with a second energy beam from a second irradiation device ([0005], “form a shell of an object with one melting beam source using a small beam size, and a core of the object with another melting beam source using a larger beam size that melts material adjacent to the shell”).
Regarding claim 3, Roerig et al. teaches irradiating the core region with a first irradiation parameter being at a first setpoint; and irradiating the shell region with a second irradiation parameter being at a second setpoint, the second setpoint differing from the first setpoint ([0005], “form a shell of an object with one melting beam source using a small beam size, and a core of the object with another melting beam source using a larger beam size that melts material adjacent to the shell”).
Regarding claim 4, Roerig et al. teaches the first irradiation parameter comprises a first spot size, and wherein the second irradiation parameter comprises a second spot size ([0005], “form a shell of an object with one melting beam source using a small beam size, and a core of the object with another melting beam source using a larger beam size that melts material adjacent to the shell”).
Regarding claim 5, Roerig et al. teaches allocating a first portion of the plurality of object elements to a first object element group (See annotated Fig. 6 below for first object element group);
Allocating a second portion of the plurality of object elements to a second object element group (See annotated Fig. 6 below for second object element group);
Forming the first portion of the plurality of object elements at least in part by irradiating the layer of the build plane with a first irradiation device (See annotated Fig. 6 below, the first object element group is irradiated in part by energy beam 135);
And forming the second portion of the plurality of object elements at least in part by irradiating the layer of the build plane with a second irradiation device (See annotated Fig. 6 below, the second object element group is irradiated in part by energy beam 137), wherein the first object element group and the second object element group have a substantially balanced aggregate surface area and/or a substantially balanced irradiation time (See annotated Fig. 6 below, Roerig et al. teaches the first object element group and the second object element group have a substantially balanced aggregate surface area).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Roerig et al. does not explicitly teach apportioning between the core region and the shell region in at least some of the plurality of object elements based at least in part on a core-shell apportionment factor.
In the analogous art of additive manufacturing, Buller et al. teaches a method of additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object (Abstract, “three-dimensional (3D) printing methods”), wherein the core region and the shell region are apportioned based at least in part on a core-shell apportionment factor ([0200], “The tiles may be formed by the tiling energy flux. In some embodiments, most of the area of the layer (e.g., horizontal cross section thereof) may be at least about 51%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 95% of the area of the layer. In some examples, a minor part of the layer of hardened material is formed by hatching (e.g., 2122). The hatching may be formed by the scanning energy beam. A minor part of the layer (e.g., horizontal cross section thereof) may be at most about 49%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, or 1% of the area of the layer.”; Buller et al. teaches the core region/tiles region and the shell region/hatching region are apportioned based on a ratio of 51:49, 60:40, 70:30, 80:20, 90:10, or 95:5, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method in Roerig et al. to incorporate a ratio between core region and shell region as taught by Buller et al., because it is desired to control the way in which at least a portion of a layer of hardened material is formed because it affects the material properties of that portion (Buller et al., [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Roerig et al. teaches at least some of the plurality of object elements define at least a portion of a pathway passing through a portion of the core region and/or a portion of the shell region of the respective object element (See annotated Fig. 8 below, object elements 200A and 200B define a portion of a pathway passing through a portion of the shell region of the object element 202A).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Roerig et al. teaches the plurality of object element groups have substantially balanced aggregate surface areas and/or substantially balanced aggregate irradiation times (See annotated Fig. 6 above, Roerig et al. teaches the first object element group and the second object element group have a substantially balanced aggregate surface area).
Regarding claim 19, Roerig et al. does not explicitly teach the shell region has a maximum cross- sectional width of from 0.0001% to 50% of a maximum cross-sectional width of the object element.
Buller et al. teaches the shell region has a maximum cross- sectional width of from 0.0001% to 50% of a maximum cross-sectional width of the object element (See annotated Fig. 21B below, the cross-sectional width of the shell region is less than 50% because when the cross-sectional width of the shell region is greater than 50%, the core region will be 0% of the cross-sectional area).
PNG
media_image3.png
264
284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method in Roerig et al. to incorporate a shell region having a maximum cross-sectional width of from 0.0001% to 50% of a maximum cross-sectional width of the object element as taught by Buller et al., because it is desired to control the way in which at least a portion of a layer of hardened material is formed because it affects the material properties of that portion (Buller et al., [0008]).
Regarding claim 20, Roerig et al. teaches a computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions, which when executed by a processor associated with an additive manufacturing machine or system, causes the additive manufacturing machine or system to perform a method of additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object ([0032], “AM system 100 generally includes a metal powder additive manufacturing control system 104 (“control system”) and an AM printer 106. As will be described, control system 104 executes set of computer-executable instructions or code 108 to generate object 102 using multiple melting beam sources 134, 135, 136, 137.”), the method comprising:
Determining an irradiation regime for a plurality of object elements (Fig. 6, 102A & 102B) of a layer of an object to be additively manufactured with an additive manufacturing machine ([0033], “a set of computer-executable instructions 108O (herein also referred to as ‘code 108O’) defining object 102 to be physically generated by AM printer 106 “; [0034], “control system 104 executes code 108S and 108O, dividing object 102 into a series of thin slices that assembles using AM printer 106 in successive layers of material.”), at least some of the plurality of object elements comprise a core region (Fig. 6, 200A&200B), a shell region (Fig. 6, 134), wherein the shell region at least partially surrounds the core region (Fig. 6, 134 surrounds 137); and
irradiating the plurality of object elements upon a build plane with one or more irradiation devices of the additive manufacturing machine ([0038], “melting beam sources 134, 135, 136, 137 to sequentially melt layers of metal powder on build platform 132 to generate object 102”), wherein the irradiation regime for at least one of the plurality of object elements comprises a core-shell irradiation regime and/or wherein the irradiation regime for at least one of the plurality of object elements comprises a core-shell apportioned irradiation regime (Fig. 6, Roerig et al. teaches the irradiation regime for 102A and 102B comprise a core-shell apportioned irradiation regime.); and
wherein the core region and the shell region have substantially balanced irradiation times ([0045], Melting beam sources may be load balanced within each layer).
Roerig et al. further discloses generating a dense microstructure internally of the three-dimensional object ([0028]).
Roerig et al. is silent on wherein the irradiation regime differentiates a material property a first contiguous surface of the shell region relative to the material property of a second contiguous surface of the core region, wherein the first contiguous surface at least partially surrounds the second contiguous surface.
In the analogous art of additive manufacturing, Buller et al. discloses wherein the irradiation regime differentiates a material property of one region relative to the material property of another region ([0226] tiling energy flux that subsequently heats and/or transforms at least portions of the first layer of hardened material may cause an alteration of the microstructure such as material density and material porosity). Buller et al. further discloses it is desired to control the microstructure of a 3D object to form a specific microstructure, or varied material microstructures in one or more specific portions of the object ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Roerig et al. to differentiate the material properties of the different regions in order to achieve the desired microstructure of the 3D printed object, as suggested by both Roerig et al. and Buller et al.
By this modification of Roerig et al., the examiner notes that the further limitation of the first and second contiguous surfaces of the shell region and the core region having the differentiated material property, wherein the first contiguous surface at least partially surrounds the second contiguous surface is met by the combination, since the shell region partially surrounds the core region, the regions are touching, and modification by Roerig et al. results in the regions having a material property that is differentiated between the shell region and core region, which would include the respective contiguous surfaces of each region.
Regarding claim 22, Buller et al. further discloses wherein the material property comprises porosity and density ([0226] tiling energy flux that subsequently heats and/or transforms at least portions of the first layer of hardened material may cause an alteration of the microstructure such as material density and material porosity).
Regarding claim 23, Roerig et al. further discloses determining an overlap region defining at least one of a boundary between or a transition from the core region to the shell region ([0040], “melting beam sources 134, 137 create an overlap section 214 of an entirety of edges 210, 212 of internal section 200A and border section 202A”).
Regarding claim 24, Roerig et al. further discloses determining at least one of a location or a cross-sectional width of the overlap region based at least in part on a relative surface area of the core region ([0039] overlap section 214 is created between an entirety of each border section and an internal section (core region) it surrounds).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180281112 (“Roerig et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20170165752 (“Buller et al.”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US Pub. No. 20160114432 (“Ferrar et al.”).
Regarding claim 7, Roerig et al. does not explicitly teach determining one or more dimensions of the core region and/or the shell region of at least some of the plurality of object elements at least in part to provide substantially balanced aggregate surface areas and/or substantially balanced aggregate irradiation times as between the first object element group and the second object element group.
Ferrar et al. teaches a method of additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object ([0001], “a selective laser melting process”), comprising determining one or more dimensions of the core region and/or the shell region of at least some of the plurality of object elements at least in part to provide substantially balanced aggregate surface areas and/or substantially balanced aggregate irradiation times as between the first object element group and the second object element group ([0046], “the length of an outer edge of the section (which, in the final object, forms a surface of the object) may be taken into account when determining a scan time of the laser beams.”; [0043], “the total length of time each laser beam 1, 2, 3, 4 scans the bed is approximately equal or at least as close as possible given other constraints on the system”; Fig. 4, since the powder bed is divided into scanning zones by dotted line 1a, 2a, 3a, and 4a, and the total length of time each laser beam 1, 2, 3, 4 scans the bed is approximately equal, the amount of time spent on irradiating the object elements in each scanning zones are approximately equal).
Roerig et al. and Ferrar et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method in Roerig et al. to incorporate one or more dimensions of the core region and/or the shell region as taught by Ferrar et al., because reduce any difference in the total length of time each laser beam is used for solidifying areas in the powder layer can reduce periods of non-utilization of the laser beams (Ferrar et al., [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, Roerig et al. does not explicitly teach apportioning the core region between a first irradiation device and a second irradiation device based at least in part on a setpoint for a core region apportionment factor, the setpoint for the core region apportionment factor determined based at least in part on a surface area and/or an irradiation time of core region and/or the shell region of the respective object element.
Ferrar et al. teaches apportioning the core region between a first irradiation device and a second irradiation device based at least in part on a surface area and/or an irradiation time of core region and/or the shell region of the respective object element ([0043], “Based on the laser beams 1, 2, 3, 4 that can scan each section and the areas of the sections, the processing unit 131 selects a laser beam 1,2,3,4 to scan a section such that the total length of time each laser beam 1, 2, 3, 4 scans the bed is approximately equal or at least as close as possible given other constraints on the system.”; Fig. 4, Ferrar et al. teaches dividing each island such as 5 into scanning sections based on the total length of time each laser beam 1, 2, 3, 4 scans the bed, which is in part based on the irradiation time of each island).
Ferrar et al. does not explicitly teach a setpoint for a core region apportionment factor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a core region apportionment factor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to add the set point of apportionment factor for the purpose of reduce or eliminate any difference in the total length of time each laser beam is used for solidifying areas in the powder layer (Ferrar et al., [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method in Perret et al. to incorporate apportioning the core region as taught by Ferrar et al., in order to reduce or eliminate any difference in the total length of time each laser beam is used for solidifying areas in the powder layer (Ferrar et al., [0009]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180281112 (“Roerig et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20170165752 (“Buller et al.”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US Pub. No. 20160114432 (“Ferrar et al.”).
Regarding claim 8, Roerig et al. does not explicitly teach determining one or more dimensions of the core region and/or the shell region of at least some of the plurality of object elements at least in part to provide substantially balanced aggregate surface areas and/or substantially balanced aggregate irradiation times as between the core regions and the shell regions of the plurality of object elements.
Buller et al. teaches a method of additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object (Abstract, “three-dimensional (3D) printing methods”), wherein the core region and the shell region have substantially balanced surface areas and/or substantially balanced irradiation times ([0200], “The tiles may be formed by the tiling energy flux. In some embodiments, most of the area of the layer (e.g., horizontal cross section thereof) may be at least about 51%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 95% of the area of the layer. In some examples, a minor part of the layer of hardened material is formed by hatching (e.g., 2122). The hatching may be formed by the scanning energy beam. A minor part of the layer (e.g., horizontal cross section thereof) may be at most about 49%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, or 1% of the area of the layer.”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method in Roerig et al. to incorporate balanced surface areas between core region and shell region as taught by Buller et al., because it is desired to control the way in which at least a portion of a layer of hardened material is formed because it affects the material properties of that portion (Buller et al., [0008]).
Ferrar et al. teaches determining one or more dimensions of the core region and/or the shell region of at least some of the plurality of object elements at least in part to provide the irradiation times of the core regions and the shell regions of the plurality of object elements ([0046], “the length of an outer edge of the section (which, in the final object, forms a surface of the object) may be taken into account when determining a scan time of the laser beams.”; [0043], “the total length of time each laser beam 1, 2, 3, 4 scans the bed is approximately equal or at least as close as possible given other constraints on the system”).
Roerig et al., Buller et al., and Ferrar et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method in Roerig et al. to incorporate determining one or more dimensions of the core region and/or the shell region as taught by Ferrar et al., because reduce any difference in the total length of time each laser beam is used for solidifying areas in the powder layer can reduce periods of non-utilization of the laser beams (Ferrar et al., [0009]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180281112 (“Roerig et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20170165752 (“Buller et al.”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US Pub. No. 20210146446 (“Pays”).
Regarding claim 11, Roerig et al. does not explicitly teach determining an alignment and/or an offset between a core region centroid and a shell region centroid based at least in part on an ordered, random, or semi-random sequence or pattern.
Pays teaches a method of additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object (Abstract, “A process for the additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional metal part”), comprising determining an alignment and/or an offset between a core region centroid and a shell region centroid based at least in part on an ordered, random, or semi-random sequence or pattern (Abstract, “The melting of said core regions (210) is effected with said laser beam (120) so as to form weld beads (211) that have identical widths (L), are mutually parallel and are juxtaposed or spaced apart or overlap over a distance less than X % of their width, and the melting of said shell regions is effected similarly to form weld beads that have identical widths to one another and to the weld beads of the core, are mutually parallel and that overlap over a distance greater than X % of their width, X being greater than 0 and less than 100.” Fig. 6, Pays teaches in Cx, the centroid of left shell region is offset from the centroid of right core region by a distance greater than X% of their width, which is a random or semi-random sequence).
Roerig et al. and Pays are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method in Roerig et al. to incorporate determining the alignment or offset of centroid between core region and shell region as taught by Pays, in order to reduce the mechanical stresses while ensuring a sufficient density of the shell and of the core (Pays, [0012]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180281112 (“Roerig et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20170165752 (“Buller et al.”) as applied in claim 1, further in view of US Pub. No. 20210308938 (“Kuno”).
Regarding claim 18, Roerig et al. does not explicitly teach the shell region has a cross-sectional width of from 1 micrometer to 10 centimeters.
Kuno teaches a shell region has a cross-sectional width of from 1 micrometer to 10 centimeters ([0401], “A thickness of outer region 221 may be defined to have a thickness of one printed voxel or a thickness of 0.1-2 mm, e.g. 0.3-1 mm or 0.3 mm.”).
Roerig et al. and Kuno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width of shell region in Roerig et al. to incorporate a range from 1 micrometer to 10 centimeters as taught by Kuno, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (Kuno, [0403]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claims 1 and 20 on pages 8-10 of applicant's remarks that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the newly added limitation of "wherein the irradiation regime differentiates a material property of a first contiguous surface of the shell region relative to the material property of a second contiguous surface of the core region, wherein the first contiguous surface at least partially surrounds the second contiguous surface", the examiner disagrees. As stated in the rejections of claims 1 and 20, this limitation is disclosed by the combination with Buller et al. ([0226] tiling energy flux that subsequently heats and/or transforms at least portions of the first layer of hardened material may cause an alteration of the microstructure such as material density and material porosity), and Buller et al. further discloses it is desired to control the microstructure of a 3D object to form a specific microstructure, or varied material microstructures in one or more specific portions of the object ([0008]). By this modification of Roerig et al., the examiner notes that the further limitation of the first and second contiguous surfaces of the shell region and the core region having the differentiated material property, wherein the first contiguous surface at least partially surrounds the second contiguous surface is met by the combination, since the shell region partially surrounds the core region, the regions are touching, and modification by Roerig et al. results in the regions having a material property that is differentiated between the shell region and core region, which would include the respective contiguous surfaces of each region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754