DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Jan. 8th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-22 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-8, 10, 14-19 were amended
Claims 9, 20 were cancelled
Claims 21-22 are newly presented
Claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 10, 17-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021 in view of Pankl et al., US 2006/0129462
Claim(s) 3-4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021 in view of Tzeng, Sz-Jia, Xiang-Xin Chen, and Wei-Cheng Wang. "Numerical studies of metal particle behaviors inside the selective laser melting (SLM) chamber through computational fluid dynamics (CFD)." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 107 (2020): 4677-4686.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021 in view of Chein et al., “Numerical and experimental investigation into gas flow field and spattering phenomena in laser powder bed fusion processing of Inconel 718”, 2021
Claim(s) 8, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021 in view of Altmeppen, “Transient simulation of particle transport and deposition in the laser powder bed fusion process: A new approach to model particle and heat ejection from the melt pool”, 2021
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021 in view of Chen, Qiang, et al. (hereinafter Qiang) "Three-dimensional finite element thermomechanical modeling of additive manufacturing by selective laser melting for ceramic materials." Additive Manufacturing 16 (2017): 124-137
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021 in view of Ansys, “ANSYS Fluent: Using the Adjoint Solver to Optimize the Shape of a Duct in a Bounded Space - Part II”, YouTube Video, Feb. 26th, 2019, URL: www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=huvn9PQHC6U
This action is Final
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/Amendments
Regarding the claim objections
These are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Regarding the § 112 Rejection
These are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
This is maintained, and has been updated below as was necessitated by amendment. No remarks outside of the amendments were submitted for consideration (page 10 of the remarks).
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
This is withdrawn in view of the amendments, and a new grounds of rejection is presented below as was necessitated by amendment. No remarks outside of the amendments were submitted for consideration (page 10 of the remarks).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Claim 10 is directed towards the statutory category of a process. Claim 21 is directed towards the statutory category of a machine.
Claims 10 and 21, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
extract a set of evacuation streamline data from the initial 3D flow field data set corresponding to the EGF performance over a build plate of the modified build chamber, the set of evacuation streamline data describing expected flow paths of the inert gas through a scanning path of the
laser beam; and; and generate an output data set using the set of evacuation streamline data, wherein the output data set comprises a set of flow vectors and an improvement estimate based on the improvement metric - math calculations in textual form, when read in view of ¶ 8: “extract a set of evacuation streamline data from the initial 3D flow field data set corresponding to the EGF performance of the modified build chamber, with "extract" referring to calculation or derivation of the evacuation streamline data from the larger set of information present in the initial 3D flow field data set.” then see ¶ 52: “The 3D flow field data set 202d is then communicated to a streamline analysis block 203, which in turn extracts streamline data 203d from the 3D flow field data set 202d and outputs the same as a vector set.” Also see ¶ 57, i.e. the output dataset is merely the result of the math calculations in the extracting set
as to the improvement metric, also math calculations/relationships in textual form – see ¶¶ 48-49: “By way of example and not of limitation, the improvement metric 103 may include a ratio of velocities or a statistical distribution thereof descriptive of different flow regions of the modified build chamber(s) 30A, with such a ratio being indicative of recirculation of suspended particles… or decreases in the total, mean, median, or maximum time length duration calculated by integration along the streamlines produced at 301 as described below… Additional embodiments of the improvement metric 103 may include changes in a statistical distribution of the flow field data, such as vorticity, helicity, swirl, or another suitable quantity. Geometric changes in the streamline data such as mean, median, total, or maximum angular deviation from an expected direction of flow within the modified build chamber 30A or a particular volume thereof may also be used. Combinations such as linear weighted combinations of some are all of the above implementations also fall within the intended scope of the present disclosure”
Also see ¶ 62: “The improvement estimate 302 (also see FIG. 2) is passed to an objective calculation block 505.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
generate an initial three-dimensional (3D) flow field data set in response to the input data set, the initial 3D flow field data set being indicative of a flow of an inert gas within the modified build chamber; extract a set of evacuation streamline data from the initial 3D flow field data set corresponding to the EGF performance over a build plate of the modified build chamber, the set of evacuation streamline data describing expected flow paths of the inert gas through a scanning path of the laser beam; - a mental process, given the generality recited.
For example, a person, e.g. an engineer, would readily be able to look at the geometry of the build chamber, e.g. with their own eyes, or a photograph of it, mentally evaluate the build chamber to ascertain where the inlet and the outlet for the gas is in the build chamber, and mentally evaluate/judge/provide their own opinion on the gas flow paths, e.g. mentally evaluating by mentally visualizing that the gas flows in at the inlet directed towards the build plate, then is reflected back off the build plate towards the outlet. The claim places no restriction on how these steps are performed that would preclude a mental process, nor does it place any restriction on how simple the gas flow paths may be (e.g. one or two parallel flow paths).
With respect to the “scanning path” - ¶ 52: “In other words, block 203 is used to determine the effectiveness of one or more given modifications to the baseline build chamber 30, in terms of the effect of such changes on evacuation gas flow over the build plate 17B, i.e., in the scanning path of the laser beam (LL).” – in other words, the person mentally performs this task while mentally observing the region over the build plate (in particular, note the “i.e.”)
For an example of a performance of such a mental process, see Veetil et al., “Build position-based dimensional deviations of laser powder-bed fusion of stainless steel 316L”, 2021, fig. 1(c) which shows a photograph of a build chamber with annotations from the author showing the “Schematic of the assisted gas flow within the build chamber” – to clarify, a person, e.g. Veetil, would have readily been able to observe the locations of the inlet and outlet of a simple build chamber, and mentally visualize in their observation the flow lines/streamlines, in a simple manner, between them and in combination with the build plate, wherein such a mental observation would readily be aided by pen and paper, e.g. drawing the flowlines on a photo of the build chamber, or on sketches of simple build chamber with simple inlet and outlet locations.
This is akin to an HVAC technician observing, in a small room, where the air intake is for the AC system, and where the vents are, and then visualizing in their own mind the flow path between the intake and vents (e.g. when trying to mentally evaluate why a customer’s HVAC system is not functioning properly).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and generate an output data set using the set of evacuation streamline data, wherein the output data set comprises a set of flow vectors and an improvement estimate based on the improvement metric. – a continuation of the mental process discussed above, i.e. the flow vectors represent “the expected flow path(s)”/”streamlines” (¶¶ 6 and 57), wherein a person would readily be able to provide a mental judgement/opinion about an improvement estimate based on an improvement metric given the generality recited in this step for how the estimate is to be generated.
To clarify on this, should further clarification be needed, see Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 – in particular, in Chen, a computer was used as a tool to perform a similar abstract idea to the one recited here (Chen, page 1932, ¶ 2: “ANSYS Fluent software”, and see the other portions of Chen for clarification), and include seeing fig. 12 of Chen which provides a display of the “Path lines of gas flow…” (see instant fig. 5-6), wherein Chen states the following: “Figure 12 demonstrating the path lines of gas flow from main and secondary inlets shows that the secondary flow comes down and join together with the horizontal main jet stream, thus suppressing the recirculation of main jet inside the chamber effectively” – which is an example of a mental observation of streamline data, with a mental judgement resultant from this observation, as one may readily mentally observe fig. 12 in Chen and see that the figure does indeed show what Chen is describing.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 1- A computer-readable medium on which instructions are recorded for improving evacuation gas flow (EGF) performance of a baseline build chamber for use in an additive manufacturing process, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor of a host computer device causes the processor to: - mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, with an intended use
Claim 10 - via a host computer device
Claim 20 – A host computer device for improving evacuation gas flow (EGF) performance of a baseline build chamber for use in an additive manufacturing process, the host computer device comprising: memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions and cause the one or more processors to:
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
receive an input data set comprising: an improvement metric operable to characterize flow improvements in the EGF performance of a modified build chamber, wherein: the modified build chamber is a modified version of the baseline build chamber, and the improvement metric is based on a volume of coverage of a laser beam that enters the modified build chamber; a defined geometry of the modified build chamber; and defined operating conditions of the modified build chamber; - mere data gathering
generate an initial three-dimensional (3D) flow field data set in response to the input data set, the initial 3D flow field data set being indicative of a flow of an inert gas within the modified build chamber; - should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea, then this would be considered as mere data gathering
extract a set of evacuation streamline data from the initial 3D flow field data set corresponding to the EGF performance over a build plate of the modified build chamber, the set of evacuation streamline data describing expected flow paths of the inert gas through a scanning path of the laser beam; - should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea, then this would be considered as mere data gathering
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 1- A computer-readable medium on which instructions are recorded for improving evacuation gas flow (EGF) performance of a baseline build chamber for use in an additive manufacturing process, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor of a host computer device causes the processor to: - mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, with an intended use
Claim 10 - via a host computer device
Claim 20 – A host computer device for improving evacuation gas flow (EGF) performance of a baseline build chamber for use in an additive manufacturing process, the host computer device comprising: memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions and cause the one or more processors to:
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
receive an input data set comprising: an improvement metric operable to characterize flow improvements in the EGF performance of a modified build chamber, wherein: the modified build chamber is a modified version of the baseline build chamber, and the improvement metric is based on a volume of coverage of a laser beam that enters the modified build chamber; a defined geometry of the modified build chamber; and defined operating conditions of the modified build chamber; - mere data gathering
generate an initial three-dimensional (3D) flow field data set in response to the input data set, the initial 3D flow field data set being indicative of a flow of an inert gas within the modified build chamber; - should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea, then this would be considered as mere data gathering
extract a set of evacuation streamline data from the initial 3D flow field data set corresponding to the EGF performance over a build plate of the modified build chamber, the set of evacuation streamline data describing expected flow paths of the inert gas through a scanning path of the laser beam; - should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea, then this would be considered as mere data gathering
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
receive an input data set comprising: an improvement metric operable to characterize flow improvements in the EGF performance of a modified build chamber, wherein: the modified build chamber is a modified version of the baseline build chamber, and the improvement metric is based on a volume of coverage of a laser beam that enters the modified build chamber; a defined geometry of the modified build chamber; and defined operating conditions of the modified build chamber; - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”, also see the evidence discussed below
generate an initial three-dimensional (3D) flow field data set in response to the input data set, the initial 3D flow field data set being indicative of a flow of an inert gas within the modified build chamber; extract a set of evacuation streamline data from the initial 3D flow field data set corresponding to the EGF performance over a build plate of the modified build chamber, the set of evacuation streamline data describing expected flow paths of the inert gas through a scanning path of the laser beam; - this is considered WURC in view of:
Chen, Yu, Guglielmo Vastola, and Yong Wei Zhang. "Optimization of inert gas flow inside laser powder bed fusion chamber with computational fluid dynamics." (2018)., see page 1932: “CFD simulation of gas flow inside the chamber was conducted using ANSYS Fluent software with steady, incompressible, turbulent flow assumption. Standard Navier-Stokes equations and k-e turbulent model were chosen to investigate the gas flow inside print chamber.” – and see fig. 12 as discussed on pages 1936-1938
Wirth, Florian, et al. "Influence of the inert gas flow on the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process." Industrializing Additive Manufacturing: Proceedings of AMPA2020. Springer International Publishing, 2021. See the abstract and § 1 including: “Several authors have already shown an influence of the shielding gas flow on spatter and soot particles by experimental studies and simulations…” – then see fig. 1, as discussed in § 2 ¶ 2, and see § 3 for: “The simulation model was set up in ANSYS Fluent using the k-x shear stress transport (SST) turbulence model with the default values for the turbulence model parameters and assuming an incompressible fluid.” – and then see § 4, for figures 4,6-7, 8, and their accompanying descriptions
Altmeppen, Johannes, et al. "Transient simulation of particle transport and deposition in the laser powder bed fusion process: A new approach to model particle and heat ejection from the melt pool." Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021): 102135. Abstract and § 1, then see fig. 16 as discussed in § 4.3.3
Veetil, Jithin Kozhuthala, et al. "Build position-based dimensional deviations of laser powder-bed fusion of stainless steel 316L." Precision engineering 67 (2021): 58-68. Abstract and § 1, then see fig. 1(C): “Schematic of the assisted gas flow within the build chamber”
Chien, Cheng-Yen, et al. "Numerical and experimental investigation into gas flow field and spattering phenomena in laser powder bed fusion processing of Inconel 718." Materials & Design 210 (2021): 110107. See the abstract and § 1, then see fig. 5: “Flow streamlines within LPBF chamber for inlet velocity of 5.58 m/s (a). Z-directional velocity distribution in middle cross-sectional plane for inlet velocity of 5.58 m/s (b).” as discussed in § 4.1 ¶¶ 1-3 including: “Fig. 5(a) shows the simulated streamlines of the gas flow inside the chamber for the case of an inlet velocity equal to 5.58 m/s (flow rate level 4 in the AM-250 LPBF system).”
Moran, T. P., et al. "Spatial inhomogeneity of build defects across the build plate in laser powder bed fusion." Additive Manufacturing 47 (2021): 102333. See the abstract and § 1, then see fig. 7: “Cross-section of build chamber gas velocity field looking from the right side (i.e. down the axis of the re-coater) of the build chamber for the (a) M290 with the gas eddy highlighted in red and (c) DMP320. A detailed view of the gas eddy in the M290 is shown in (b).” as discussed in detail on page 7
Chen, Xiang-Xin, and Wei-Cheng Wang. "The applications of particle image velocimetry (PIV) to experimentally observe the flow behaviors inside the Selective Laser Melting (SLM) working chamber." Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 73 (2020): 101738. Abstract and § 1, then see figures 12-13 as discussed in § 3.1.4
Ansys, “ANSYS Fluent: Using the Adjoint Solver to Optimize the Shape of a Duct in a Bounded Space - Part II”, YouTube Video, Feb. 26th, 2019 – see around 5:30 which visually depicts streamlines through a pipe simulation using the commercial software program Ansys Fluent (as was used in several of the above noted references)
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 is considered as a mental step of a mental judgement/opinion, as this is merely “to request construction…”, but for the mere instructions to use a computer and generic computer components as a tool to implement this step, wherein should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea, then this would be considered as both an insignificant extra-solution activity of both an insignificant application and mere data transmission and as mere instructions to “apply it”, given the results-oriented nature of this limitation, wherein this is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);… i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” – for additional WURC evidence, see:
¶¶ 1-3, including “The powder feedstock is situated on an exposed build plate within an enclosed build chamber.”, in the instant disclosure
Chen, Xiang-Xin, and Wei-Cheng Wang. "The applications of particle image velocimetry (PIV) to experimentally observe the flow behaviors inside the Selective Laser Melting (SLM) working chamber." Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 73 (2020): 101738. Abstract and § 1, including: “Selective Laser Melting (SLM) has been one of the techniques of the powder bed melting molding in Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology. After 20 years of development, the mechanical properties of the final products have reached the same level as or better than the traditional manufacturing, and the material efficiency has also been improved [1,2]. SLM has a high degree of freedom in manufacturing capabilities to manufacture prototypes and functional components with complex structures. In recent years, it has been applied to automotive, aerospace, aircraft and biomedical materials [3,4]. For example, Approximately 100,000 parts for LEAP fuel nozzle are planned to be manufactured with SLM in GE Aviation by 2020 [5]…”, also see § 2, ¶ 3: “…Various types of metal powders were used in the PIV experiment in accordance with the previous literatures [33], such as silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide and hollow glass sphere, which their characteristics and Stoke numbers are shown in Table 2….”
Moran, T. P., et al. "Spatial inhomogeneity of build defects across the build plate in laser powder bed fusion." Additive Manufacturing 47 (2021): 102333. See the abstract and § 1, including: “Metal additive manufacturing (AM) is a rapidly emerging technology with the potential to displace traditional fabrication methods in several industries [1–4]. Currently, the most common subset of metal AM is laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) [5]…” and § 2.1: “Two single sets of Ti-6Al-4V specimens were fabricated from two common commercial LPBF machines: the EOS M290 and the 3D Systems ProX DMP320.” – also see the title of citation # 40: “Specification for Control and Quantification of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metallurgical Processes. Standard, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, USA, October 2017
Wirth, Florian, et al. "Influence of the inert gas flow on the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process." Industrializing Additive Manufacturing: Proceedings of AMPA2020. Springer International Publishing, 2021. See the abstract and § 1, including: “…LPBF is used for applications in aerospace, energy, tool and mold making such as lightweight structures with topology optimization, turbine blades or forging tools. Nevertheless, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [1], the Additive Manufacturing Special Interest Group [2] and Caltanisetta et al. [3], a broader application is limited by the relative instability and poor repeatability of the process and by the low productivity in current LPBF machines… Pauzon et al. [8] could achieve an increase by 44% in the build rate of Ti-6Al-4 V when using a mixture of 50% argon and 50% helium…”
Claims 3-4 are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering with recitations generic computer components as part of using a computer and generic computer components as a tool to implement the abstract, wherein this is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);” -also see:
Chen, Xiang-Xin, and Wei-Cheng Wang. "The applications of particle image velocimetry (PIV) to experimentally observe the flow behaviors inside the Selective Laser Melting (SLM) working chamber." Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 73 (2020): 101738. Abstract: “…This study proposed the technique of particle image velocimetry (PIV) for investigating the flow characteristics inside the SLM chamber…” and § 1 including: “…The PIV technique has been widely used for investigating the flow field in the enclosed chamber… According to the studies mentioned above, applying the PIV technique to observe the flow field caused by the blow-to-suction system in a large enclosed SLM working chamber would be an appropriate solution.” – see the remaining portions of § 1 for clarification on this
Schniedenharn, Maximilian, Frederik Wiedemann, and Johannes Henrich Schleifenbaum. "Visualization of the shielding gas flow in SLM machines by space-resolved thermal anemometry." Rapid Prototyping Journal 24.8 (2018): 1296-1304. § 1, then see page 1297, col. 2, last paragraph: “Common methods for noninvasive technologies are particle image velocimetry (PIV) or laser doppler anemometry.”
Claim 5 is part of the mere data gathering, wherein this is merely adding generic computer components to the data gathering (see ¶ 34 of the instant disclosure to clarify, as ¶ 34 gives a generic description of what the human-machine interface is), wherein this is WURC in view of the above discussed evidence for the independent claims mere data gathering steps
Claim 6 is “a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags)” As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h), and WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claim 1
Claim 7 is considered as part of the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract, mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, generally linking to the technological environment of computers, as well as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for the independent claims. See ¶ 51 of the instant disclosure to clarify on the BRI of this limitation
Claim 8 is another step in the mental process of a mental judgement/evaluation, given the generality recited in the claims and the disclosure (¶ 34), akin to “• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)
Claim 11 – this is both an insignificant extra-solution activity of both an insignificant application and mere data transmission and as mere instructions to “apply it”, given the results-oriented nature of this limitation, and WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claim 2
Claim 12 rejected under a similar rationale as claim 11 as discussed above, in addition claim 12 is also considered as generally linking to a field of use when read in view of ¶¶ 1-3 including: “Additive manufacturing (AM), a process also frequently referred to in the art as three dimensional (3D) printing, has tremendous utility in a wide range of industries and beneficial applications, including but not limited to the fabrication of specialized components and devices.” – also, this is WURC in view of:
Chen, Xiang-Xin, and Wei-Cheng Wang. "The applications of particle image velocimetry (PIV) to experimentally observe the flow behaviors inside the Selective Laser Melting (SLM) working chamber." Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 73 (2020): 101738. Abstract and § 1, including: “Selective Laser Melting (SLM) has been one of the techniques of the powder bed melting molding in Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology. After 20 years of development, the mechanical properties of the final products have reached the same level as or better than the traditional manufacturing, and the material efficiency has also been improved [1,2]. SLM has a high degree of freedom in manufacturing capabilities to manufacture prototypes and functional components with complex structures. In recent years, it has been applied to automotive, aerospace, aircraft and biomedical materials [3,4]. For example, Approximately 100,000 parts for LEAP fuel nozzle are planned to be manufactured with SLM in GE Aviation by 2020 [5]…”, also see § 2, ¶ 3: “…Various types of metal powders were used in the PIV experiment in accordance with the previous literatures [33], such as silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide and hollow glass sphere, which their characteristics and Stoke numbers are shown in Table 2….”
Moran, T. P., et al. "Spatial inhomogeneity of build defects across the build plate in laser powder bed fusion." Additive Manufacturing 47 (2021): 102333. See the abstract and § 1, including: “Metal additive manufacturing (AM) is a rapidly emerging technology with the potential to displace traditional fabrication methods in several industries [1–4]. Currently, the most common subset of metal AM is laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) [5]…” and § 2.1: “Two single sets of Ti-6Al-4V specimens were fabricated from two common commercial LPBF machines: the EOS M290 and the 3D Systems ProX DMP320.” – also see the title of citation # 40: “Specification for Control and Quantification of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metallurgical Processes. Standard, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, USA, October 2017
Wirth, Florian, et al. "Influence of the inert gas flow on the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process." Industrializing Additive Manufacturing: Proceedings of AMPA2020. Springer International Publishing, 2021. See the abstract and § 1, including: “…LPBF is used for applications in aerospace, energy, tool and mold making such as lightweight structures with topology optimization, turbine blades or forging tools. Nevertheless, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [1], the Additive Manufacturing Special Interest Group [2] and Caltanisetta et al. [3], a broader application is limited by the relative instability and poor repeatability of the process and by the low productivity in current LPBF machines… Pauzon et al. [8] could achieve an increase by 44% in the build rate of Ti-6Al-4 V when using a mixture of 50% argon and 50% helium…” and page 201 ¶ 1: “This also allows for the upkeep of a sufficiently high gas flow rate when other powder materials such as aluminum or comparably small powder particles are processed, which are carried away by the shielding gas at lower velocities compared to the herein considered stainless steel powder”
Chen, Qiang, et al. "Three-dimensional finite element thermomechanical modeling of additive manufacturing by selective laser melting for ceramic materials." Additive Manufacturing 16 (2017): 124-137. § 1: “…Among them, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) has drawn peoples’ attention, especially in the fields of aerospace and medical orthopedic for metallic alloys hard to shape with conventional technologies. Applications in aluminum [1], stainless steel[2], titanium [3,4], cobalt chromium [5] and nickel [6] are of particular interest….”
Claim 13 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 6 as discussed above
Claims 14-15 are rejected under a similar rationale as claims 3-4 as discussed above
Claim 16 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 5 as discussed above
Claim 17 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 7 as discussed above
Claim 18 is rejected as being part of the math concept as discussed above as a math calculation in textual form, when read in view of ¶ 8 as discussed above, as well as ¶ 48: “the improvement metric 103 may include a ratio of velocities or a statistical distribution thereof descriptive of different flow regions of the modified build chamber(s) 30A, with such a ratio being indicative of recirculation of suspended particles”, wherein this is also considered as a mental step of a mental evaluation given the generality of what is recited, akin to “• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), e.g. a person would readily be able to evaluate a ratio of a few numbers, e.g. two velocities
Claim 19 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 as discussed above
Claim 22 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 above
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 10, 17-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., “OPTIMIZATION OF INERT GAS FLOW INSIDE LASER POWDER BED FUSION CHAMBER WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS”, 2018 in view of Jakumeit et al., “Modelling the complex evaporated gas flow and its impact on particle spattering during laser powder bed fusion”, Sept. 2021
For clarity of record, Jakumeit was previously cited in the non-final rejection as pertinent prior art.
Regarding Claim 1
Chen teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium on which instructions are recorded for improving evacuation gas flow (EGF) performance of a baseline build chamber for use in an additive manufacturing process, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor of a host computer device causes the processor to: receive an input data set comprising: an improvement metric operable to characterize flow improvements in the EGF performance of a modified build chamber, wherein: the modified build chamber is a modified version of the baseline build chamber,…; a defined geometry of the modified build chamber; and defined operating conditions of the modified build chamber; (Chen, abstract: “It is crucial to maintain a uniform and fast enough inert gas flow inside build chamber to obtain high quality final products (e.g. low porosity) without oxidation. The current study investigated the behaviors of the inert gas flow inside a chamber with CFD simulations, as well as its evaluation and optimization. The gas flow pattern inside the chamber was evaluated in terms of the uniformity of velocity across the build plate. It was shown that the gas channels and locations of inlet openings significantly affected the flow inside the chamber. So the design of gas channels/inlets and flow rates was carefully adjusted to generate uniform gas flow across the chamber to remove emissions from the melt pool efficiently. Furthermore, the re-circulation of emission inside chamber was significantly reduced to keep the chamber walls clean and minimize the damage to the optical surface.”
To clarify on the baseline build chamber and its geometry, see section “Method and simulation setup” ¶ 1: “A virtual RENISHAW AM250 chamber and its gas inlet rail and outlet were built up in ANSYS for simulation and evaluation of the inside gas flow (see Figure 1). The gas firstly enters a 550mm long inlet rail with diameter 40mm, then turns into an array of 13 cylindrical nozzles with 12mm in diameter and 18mm in length, of which the interval is 20mm. The center of the nozzle array is located 67.5mm above the bottom wall of the chamber, where the 271mm*271mm sized build plate is located.”
To clarify on the metric, Chen provides numerous examples of various metrics used for the optimization - see page 1933, ¶¶ 1-2: “…To check the influence of gas flow on selective laser melting carefully, it is worth to examine the velocity contour over the build plate closely with other parts but off as shown in Figure 4. The high speed spot region can be clearly found located over the left bottom corner of the build plate, leaving other regions without coverage of gas flow. To reveal the underlying mechanism behind the non-uniform velocity of gas flow, a side view of gas flow inside the chamber is demonstrated in Figure 5. It is found that the nozzle is too high compared to the chamber’s bottom, so that jet is too far away from the build plate and becomes unstable and partially sweeps down to form high speed spot over the build plate. So reducing the height of nozzles in the original design is supposed to increase the gas flow quality over the quality, which is investigated in the next part.”, also see page 1936: “Although the flow over the build plate has been optimized to very uniform pattern, the recirculation also needs to be investigated to avoid emission to stay and stick on the chamber walls and lens surface. As seen from the side view of the velocity in Figure 11, the recirculation is strongly suppressed by the downward secondary gas from the top wall which pumps in as 2/3 of the mas flow rate of the main inlet through the nozzles. Figure 12 demonstrating the path lines of gas flow from main and secondary inlets shows that the secondary flow comes down and join together with the horizontal main jet stream, thus suppressing the recirculation of main jet inside the chamber effectively…” and page 1938: “Through the discussion and visualization of gas flow in the above sections, it can be concluded that the flow becomes more uniform with the optimizations step by step. However, it is still worthwhile to evaluate the uniformity quantitatively based on mean, maximum and minimum velocity and variance of velocity. It can be found that through the optimization process (lower the nozzles, elongate nozzles and extend nozzle array/number), the variance of velocity is reduces, and the minimum velocity increases and gets closer to the maximum velocity, resulting in gas flow with higher quality.”
To clarify on the modified version and its geometry, see the section “Results and Discussion” for its discussion of the modifications to the geometry, including: “…reducing the height of nozzles in the original design [page 1933]…It can be found from Figure 6 that after redu