DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 21-22, 24-26, and 40-43 are examined in this office action as claims 28-39 are cancelled, claims 40-43 are new, and claims 1, 21, and 25-26 were amended in the reply dated 2/12/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “working areas-by” in step (1) of the 4th paragraph of the claim. It is not grammatically correct for “areas” and “by” to have a hyphen between them linking them as words.
. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “(a) liquifying a layer of 2 millimeters to 20 millimeters of a solidified surface of a casting-in-progress to create a melt pool in said surface” and “(c) controlling solidification of the combined melt pool and droplet of molten metal according to a thermal cooling profile to form a newly-cast metal volume”. Applicant points to paragraph [0089] as support for liquefying a thick layer of 2 millimeters to 20 millimeters and points to paragraphs [0228]-[0229] and Figures 8e-8f as to the rest of the claim. While paragraph [0088] of the specification notes that production layers range from about 2 millimeters to 20 millimeters, this does not recite the layer is liquified, nor that a molten pool has this thickness. Paragraph [0115] of the specification notes that the melt pool involves “melt[ing] just the upper surface” and paragraph [0123] notes that the “Melt pool 450 is formed by melting a small portion of the surface of the object region of previous production layer 421c” and thus applicant is disclosing where some amount less than the entire layer is being melted. Thus, applicant does not have support for melting a layer of 2 to 20 mm.
Further, the Figures merely relate to the uniformity of properties rather than controlling the solidification of the combined melt pool and droplet. While paragraph [0025] notes that “heating the working areas to a post-deposition target temperature after depositing metal on the working areas to affect a thermal cooling profile of the working areas”, this does not relate a thermal cooling profile to the solidification of the melt pool and droplet. Therefore, the specification does not describe the claimed subject matter of “(a) liquifying a layer of 2 millimeters to 20 millimeters of a solidified surface of a casting-in-progress to create a melt pool in said surface” and “(c) controlling solidification of the combined melt pool and droplet of molten metal according to a thermal cooling profile to form a newly-cast metal volume” in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “substantially uniform mechanical properties” in the first two lines of the claim and “substantially uniform stress-strain characteristics throughout its volume” in lines 9-10. The term “substantially” in claim 40 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While Figures 8e-8f shows strength and strain from example coupons, as these are merely examples this is not a definition for “substantially” and it is not clear what the scope of “substantially” is within the claims. Claims 41-43 are also rejected as they depend from claim 40 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “approximately 50%”. Approximately is also used in claim 43 in conjunction with “diameter of approximately 3mm” and “approximately 4 cm3 per second”. The term “approximately” in claims 41 and 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While “approximately” is used in paragraph [0130] to describe the diameter and volume the specification merely recites this term and does not provide guidance on what is encompassed by “approximately”.
Claim 42 recites “releasing produces a continuous stream of said molten metal” in lines 1-2. As claim 40, from which claim 42 depends, recites that the releasing step involves droplets of molten metal it is not clear how there can both be both something that is continuous which by definition is not differentiated while also being a droplet which is a distinct tiny drop of liquid.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0206810 A1 of Lavi with evidentiary reference to ASM Handbook, Volume 04C - Induction Heating and Heat Treatment of Rudnev.
As to claim 1, Lavi relates to the field of additive casting of parts (Lavi, paragraph [0002]). Lavi discloses casting of a metallic object (Lavi, paragraph [0040] where if the liquid poured into the mold is molten metal, the object produced is metallic) by producing multiple production layers (Lavi, Fig 1, 3A, 3B and 4; see layers including mold and object regions) having mold regions (108, 112; 211, 212, 213, 215; 311, 312, 313) (Lavi, Fig 1, 3A, 3B, and 4; see also paragraph [0056]) and object regions defined by the mold regions (104, 204, 304) (Lavi, Fig 1, 3A, 3B, and 4; see also paragraph [0059]), one current production layer after the other up to a top production layer (Lavi, Fig 1; see also paragraph [0033] which notes that the casted parts are produced by depositing molten metal into mold portions being deposited themselves layer by layer, thus at the finish there would be a top production layer). Lavi discloses where the additive casting apparatus includes a build table (Lavi, paragraph [0037]; see also claim 1 and Figure 1 where the build table is 116), meeting the claim limitation of the production chamber encompassing at least a build table.
Lavi discloses depositing a first portion of a mold, wherein the depositing is performed layer by layer and pouring liquid substance into the first portion of the mold to form a casted layer (Lavi, FIG. 2) where the liquid substance is molten metal (Lavi, paragraph [0040]) and Lavi notes that each mold portion, as deposited, may be filled with liquid substance in order to form a casted layer, prior to the deposition of an additional mold portion (Lavi, paragraph [0036]) which meets the limitation of constructing a mold region of the current production layer before producing the object region of the current production layer. Lavi discloses a movable pouring unit (120) for pouring the molten metal (Lavi, FIG. 1; paragraph [0037]). Lavi discloses where the movable pouring unit (120) may be controlled to pour each casted layer into a corresponding mold portion (Lavi, FIG. 1; paragraph [0043]) thereby meeting the claim limitation of moving a molten metal depositor over a deposition path and depositing molten metal at a predetermined deposition temperature in multiple working areas at the object region of the current production layer according to a building plan as the layers shown in FIG 1 of Lavi can have multiple working “areas” (See also Lavi, Fig 2 which notes in step 220 that the model can have one or more parts) and by moving the pouring unit, it must have a deposition path and metal must be deposited at some deposition temperature and this is done according to a building plan (Lavi, FIG. 1 and 2).
Lavi discloses a pre-heating unit (145) which is configured to move in at least one axe (Lavi, paragraph [0047]; see also FIG 1). Lavi discloses where pre-heating unit (145) may be carried/coupled to robotic arm (151) capable of moving pre-heating unit (145) to any required point over the surface of a casted layer, such as layer (104) (Lavi, paragraph [0047]; FIG 1), thus Lavi is disclosing moving one or more heaters over the preposition path and heating the multiple working areas.
Lavi discloses when the liquid substance being cast is molten metals or alloys, pre-heating the solidified casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0047]) thereby meeting the claim limitation of heating multiple working areas to a pre-deposition target temperature as by reducing the temperature gradient between the already solidified casted layer and the molten material being poured to form the additional casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0047]), Lavi is disclosing where the bonding between molten metal with the working areas would be affected as otherwise the temperature gradient would cause warping and cracks which would reduce the bonding of the areas.
Lavi discloses where pouring the third and fourth casted layers may cause a reheating to some extant an already fully solidified lower casted layer and the reheating may cause an, in situ, annealing process in the first casted layer result in at least partial stress relief of the first casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0014] and [0067]), meeting the claim limitation of providing annealing heating to one or more earlier production layers by heat conduction through the current production layer.
Lavi discloses where the previously cast layer may be preheated (Lavi, paragraph [0065]), meeting the limitation of for each working area controlling at least the pre-deposition temperature as by setting a preheating temperature for the layer, this is a preheating temperature for each of the working areas.
Lavi discloses that the microstructure of the layers can be controlled by selecting different pre-heating temperatures to be provided and the lower the pre-heating temperature the finer the microstructure (Lavi, paragraph [0069]). As layers are already different vertical working areas of an object region, Lavi discloses applying it to different pre-heating temperatures to different regions to control the microstructure and create areas with fine grain microstructure (Lavi, paragraph [0069]), meeting the claim limitation of providing different thermal cycling profiles for different ones of the multiple working areas. As Lavi is applying different pre-heating temperatures to the layers, this is necessarily also heating the multiple working areas to a past-deposition target temperature after depositing metal on the multiple working areas thereby affecting a thermal cooling profile of the multiple working areas as a preheating of one layer necessarily creates a post heating of areas of previous layers thereby affecting their thermal cooling profiles.
Lavi discloses where the part may be cast from aluminum A355 (Lavi, paragraph 0072]) and Lavi discloses where pre-heating may be done to 600-700°C (Lavi, paragraph [0065]). As aluminum A355 begins melting at 537°C as evidenced by Rudnev (Rudnev, pg. 323, Table 19), Lavi is disclosing where there is a melt pool of molten metal in the working areas, meeting the claim limitations of heating the multiple working areas to a temperature equal to or above a melting temperature of the metallic object to thereby create a melt pool of molten metal in the working areas.
As to claim 2, Lavi discloses where pouring the third and fourth casted layers may cause a reheating to some extant an already fully solidified lower casted layer and the reheating may cause an, in situ, annealing process in the first casted layer result in at least partial stress relief of the first casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0014] and [0067]).
As to claim 25, Lavi discloses that the microstructure of the layers can be controlled by selecting different pre-heating temperatures to be provided and the lower the pre-heating temperature the finer the microstructure (Lavi, paragraph [0069]). As layers are already different vertical working areas of an object region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also apply different pre-heating temperatures to different (horizontal) working areas as Lavi already discloses applying it to different layers and by applying the different pre-heating temperatures to different regions of the same layer, a person of ordinary skill could control the microstructure and create areas with fine grain microstructure (Lavi, paragraph [0069]). Also, as produced layers are the material upon which further layers are built, pre-heating this material before introducing the material making up the next layer is also a post-heating treatment of the previous layer. Nevertheless, Lavi is disclosing a heat treatment that occurs after one layer is formed and before another layer is formed. Thus, whether this is called a pre-heating step or a post-heating step, this is the same heating step, applied at the same point in the process. As such, Lavi’s pre-heating step also meets the claim limitation of controlling the post-deposition target temperature and thereby the heating regime.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0206810 A1 of Lavi with evidentiary reference to ASM Handbook, Volume 04C - Induction Heating and Heat Treatment of Rudnev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0308805 A1 of Ma.
As to claim 3, Lavi discloses an annealing process in the first casted layer result in at least partial stress relief of the first casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0014] and [0067]), however, Lavi does not explicitly disclose providing annealing heating to one or more earlier production layers by heat conduction through the top production layer comprises moving the one or more heaters over the multiple working areas of the top production layer for one or more successive annealing heating cycles.
Ma relates to additive manufacturing and specifically to electromagnetic induction heating-assisted laser additive manufacturing of a titanium matrix composite (Ma, paragraph [0001]). Ma teaches that by having an electromagnetic induction power supply host 4 and the distance between the coil 6 and the upper surface of the deposition sample 3, temperature-gradient preheating and slow cooling are realized (Ma, paragraph [0015]). Ma teaches that adjusting the position of the coil 6 can realize on-line annealing of a specific area of the deposition sample 3. (Ma, paragraph [0015]), meeting the limitation of controlling for each working area the moving velocity as by positioning the coil over the area and heating, the speed of the heater and temperature are being controlled for the areas. Ma teaches that these processes can reduce residual stress and a cracking tendency and improve the mechanical performance (Ma, paragraph [0026]).
As Ma and Lavi both relate to annealing treatments in additive manufacturing processes and Lavi already discloses the use of an induction heater (Lavi, paragraph [0064]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an induction coil and adjust the position of the coil to realize on-line annealing of specific areas as taught by Ma into the method of additive casting disclosed by Lavi, thereby reduce residual stress and a cracking tendency and improve the mechanical performance (Ma, paragraph [0026]) as well as carrying out the annealing already disclosed in Lavi.
As to claim 4, Lavi discloses where the joining unit 140 which can be an induction heater can be coupled to a robotic arm capable of moving the joining unit to any required point over the surface of a casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0046]). Further, Ma discloses where the distance between the coil and the upper surface of the deposition sample are adjusted, i.e. the height of the coil is adjusted (Ma, paragraph [0015]) meeting the claim limitations.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0206810 A1 of Lavi with evidentiary reference to ASM Handbook, Volume 04C - Induction Heating and Heat Treatment of Rudnev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0319291 A1 (as cited on IDS received 7/13/22) of Cook and US 2019/0091768 A1 of McWilliams.
As to claims 21 and 22, Lavi teaches preheating (Lavi, paragraph [0065]) and Sachs teaches using a heater to heat the environment within the build chamber where the heater can heat air or inert gas within the build chamber to a target temperature (Sachs, paragraph [0077]). However, Lavi does not disclose where the target temperature is a first temperature during construction of the mold region and to heat the production chamber to a second temperature during deposition of the molten metal, wherein the first temperature is different from the second temperature nor where the first temperature is less than the second temperature.
However, Cook discloses where the deposited material is re-melted if solidified to ensure bonding of individual sections and/or adjacent sections of deposited material (Cook, paragraph [0115]), thus Cook is disclosing a target temperature during the casting process of at or above a melting temperature of the metallic object.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a target temperature during the casting process of at or above a melting temperature of the metallic object as taught by Cook into the method of additive casting disclosed in the method of Lavi and Sachs, thereby producing stronger bonding between the layers in the z-direction (Cook, paragraph [0116]).
While Cook and Lavi are silent on a temperature during the construction of the mold region, the build chamber would have to be at some temperature during this phase of construction and a person of ordinary skill would have to select some temperature to carry out the above disclosed method of constructing the mold. While Cook discloses the benefits to bonding of the layers of using a high temperature during deposition of molten metal, there is no disclosed or obvious benefit to carrying out the construction of the mold regions at high temperatures.
Further, McWilliams relates to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing specifically the rapid additive sintering of materials (McWilliams, abstract). McWilliams teaches that lower temperatures and shorter manufacturing times reduce cost (McWilliams, paragraph [0020]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a lower first temperature during construction of the mold region into the method of additive casting disclosed by the combination of Lavi, Sachs, and Cook as there is no benefit to constructing the mold at high temperatures and the use of lower temperatures is known to reduce manufacturing costs (McWilliams, paragraph [0020]) as less energy is needed to keep the system at elevated temperature.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0206810 A1 of Lavi with evidentiary reference to ASM Handbook, Volume 04C - Induction Heating and Heat Treatment of Rudnev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0308805 A1 of Ma, and Light Alloys - Metallurgy of the Light Metals (5th Edition) - 7.3.3 Properties of Annealed α-β Alloys. of Polmear.
As to claim 24, Lavi discloses an annealing process in the first casted layer result in at least partial stress relief of the first casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0014] and [0067]), however, Lavi does not explicitly disclose providing annealing heating to one or more earlier production layers by heat conduction through the top production layer comprises moving the one or more heaters over the multiple working areas of the top production layer for one or more successive annealing heating cycles.
Ma relates to additive manufacturing and specifically to electromagnetic induction heating-assisted laser additive manufacturing of a titanium matrix composite (Ma, paragraph [0001]). Ma teaches that by having an electromagnetic induction power supply host 4 and the distance between the coil 6 and the upper surface of the deposition sample 3, temperature-gradient preheating and slow cooling are realized (Ma, paragraph [0015]). Ma teaches that adjusting the position of the coil 6 can realize on-line annealing of a specific area of the deposition sample 3 (Ma, paragraph [0015]). Ma teaches that these processes can reduce residual stress and a cracking tendency and improve the mechanical performance (Ma, paragraph [0026]).
As Ma and Lavi both relate to annealing treatments in additive manufacturing processes and Lavi already discloses the use of an induction heater (Lavi, paragraph [0064]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an induction coil and adjust the position of the coil to realize on-line annealing of specific areas as taught by Ma into the method of additive casting disclosed by Lavi, thereby reduce residual stress and a cracking tendency and improve the mechanical performance (Ma, paragraph [0026]) as well as carrying out the annealing already disclosed in Lavi.
Lavi discloses where the joining unit 140 which can be an induction heater can be coupled to a robotic arm capable of moving the joining unit to any required point over the surface of a casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0046]). Further, Ma discloses where the distance between the coil and the upper surface of the deposition sample are adjusted, i.e. the height of the coil is adjusted (Ma, paragraph [0015]). As Lavi discloses where the production proceeds up from the build table (Lavi, Fig.1) and discloses a robotic arm (151) capable of moving to any point over the casted layer and Ma teaches adjusting the height of the coil (Ma, paragraph [0015]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the induction coil up after each of the annealing heating cycles to carry out the annealing heating cycles.
Neither Lavi nor Ma teach successive annealing heating cycles.
However, the use of multiple, successive annealing cycles to maximize the finished properties of metals is known in the art. For example, Polmear teaches using stabilization annealing with titanium alloys (Polmear, pg. 400, second paragraph). Polmear teaches a first annealing treatment at 25−55°C below the β-transus, followed by air cooling or water quenching and a subsequent stabilization annealing treatment is carried out at ∼300−450°C below the β-transus (Polmear, pg. 400, second paragraph). Polmear teaches that this successive annealing enhances the stability of the β phase and allows for maximum creep resistance and stability (Polmear, pg. 400, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute titanium and add a stabilization annealing treatment composed of an annealing treatment at 25−55°C below the β-transus followed by a successive annealing treatment carried out at ∼300−450°C below the β-transus as taught by Polmear into the method of additive casting disclosed by the combination of Lavi, Sachs and Ma, thereby achieving maximum creep resistance and stability (Polmear, pg. 400, second paragraph).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0206810 A1 of Lavi with evidentiary reference to ASM Handbook, Volume 04C - Induction Heating and Heat Treatment of Rudnev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0252830 A1 of Sachs.
As to claim 26, Lavi relates to the field of additive casting of parts (Lavi, paragraph [0002]). Lavi discloses casting of a metallic object (Lavi, paragraph [0040] where if the liquid poured into the mold is molten metal, the object produced is metallic) by producing multiple production layers (Lavi, Fig 1, 3A, 3B and 4; see layers including mold and object regions) having mold regions (108, 112; 211, 212, 213, 215; 311, 312, 313) (Lavi, Fig 1, 3A, 3B, and 4; see also paragraph [0056]) and object regions defined by the mold regions (104, 204, 304) (Lavi, Fig 1, 3A, 3B, and 4; see also paragraph [0059]), one current production layer after the other up to a top production layer (Lavi, Fig 1; see also paragraph [0033] which notes that the casted parts are produced by depositing molten metal into mold portions being deposited themselves layer by layer, thus at the finish there would be a top production layer). Lavi discloses where the additive casting apparatus includes a build table (Lavi, paragraph [0037]; see also claim 1 and Figure 1 where the build table is 116), meeting the claim limitation of the production chamber encompassing at least a build table.
Lavi discloses depositing a first portion of a mold, wherein the depositing is performed layer by layer and pouring liquid substance into the first portion of the mold to form a casted layer (Lavi, FIG. 2) where the liquid substance is molten metal (Lavi, paragraph [0040]) and Lavi notes that each mold portion, as deposited, may be filled with liquid substance in order to form a casted layer, prior to the deposition of an additional mold portion (Lavi, paragraph [0036]) which meets the limitation of constructing a mold region of the current production layer before producing the object region of the current production layer. Lavi discloses a movable pouring unit (120) for pouring the molten metal (Lavi, FIG. 1; paragraph [0037]). Lavi discloses where the movable pouring unit (120) may be controlled to pour each casted layer into a corresponding mold portion (Lavi, FIG. 1; paragraph [0043]) thereby meeting the claim limitation of moving a molten metal depositor over a deposition path and depositing molten metal at a predetermined deposition temperature in multiple working areas at the object region of the current production layer according to a building plan as the layers shown in FIG 1 of Lavi can have multiple working “areas” (See also Lavi, Fig 2 which notes in step 220 that the model can have one or more parts) and by moving the pouring unit, it must have a deposition path and metal must be deposited at some deposition temperature and this is done according to a building plan (Lavi, FIG. 1 and 2).
Lavi discloses a pre-heating unit (145) which is configured to move in at least one axe (Lavi, paragraph [0047]; see also FIG 1). Lavi discloses where pre-heating unit (145) may be carried/coupled to robotic arm (151) capable of moving pre-heating unit (145) to any required point over the surface of a casted layer, such as layer (104) (Lavi, paragraph [0047]; FIG 1), thus Lavi is disclosing moving one or more heaters over the preposition path and heating the multiple working areas.
Lavi discloses when the liquid substance being cast is molten metals or alloys, pre-heating the solidified casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0047]) thereby meeting the claim limitation of heating multiple working areas to a pre-deposition target temperature as by reducing the temperature gradient between the already solidified casted layer and the molten material being poured to form the additional casted layer (Lavi, paragraph [0047]), Lavi is disclosing where the bonding between molten metal with the working areas would be affected as otherwise the temperature gradient would cause warping and cracks which would reduce the bonding of the areas.
Lavi discloses where the previously cast layer may be preheated (Lavi, paragraph [0065]), meeting the limitation of for each working area controlling at least the pre-deposition temperature as by setting a preheating temperature for the layer, this is a preheating temperature for each of the working areas. Also, as produced layers are the material upon which further layers are built, pre-heating this material before introducing the material making up the next layer is also a post-heating treatment of the previous layer. Nevertheless, Lavi is disclosing a heat treatment that occurs after one layer is formed and before another layer is formed. Thus, whether this is called a pre-heating step or a post-heating step, this is the same heating step, applied at the same point in the process. As such, Lavi’s pre-heating step also meets the claim limitation of controlling the post-deposition target temperature and thereby the heating regime.
Lavi discloses where the apparatus includes a controller configured to control the controllable components of apparatus (Lavi, paragraph [0037]). However, Lavi does not explicitly disclose controlling a temperature of the production chamber at one or more predetermined values.
Sachs relates to additive manufacturing involving ejecting liquid metal along a controlled pattern (Sachs, abstract). Sachs teaches that metal can freeze rapidly upon landing on the object if the object is cool (Sachs, paragraph [0078]). Because of this, Sachs teaches the temperature of the object being fabricated can be controlled to facilitate achieving desired deposition of the liquid metal′ on the object (Sachs, paragraph [0077]). Sachs teaches this is accomplished by a heater to heat the environment within the build chamber where the heater can heat air or inert gas within the build chamber to a target temperature (Sachs, paragraph [0077]), meeting the limitation of controlling a temperature of the production chamber.
As Lavi and Sachs both relate to additive manufacturing involving liquid metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of heating the environment within the build chamber with a heater to a target temperature as taught by Sachs into the method of additive casting disclosed by Lavi, thereby facilitating the desired deposition of the liquid metal on the object (Sachs, paragraph [0077]).
While Lavi does not explicitly disclose where the pre-deposition or post-deposition target temperature is controlled as a function of the position of the object region of the cast object, Lavi discloses that the microstructure of the layers can be controlled by selecting different pre-heating temperatures to be provided and the lower the pre-heating temperature the finer the microstructure (Lavi, paragraph [0069]). As layers are already different vertical working areas of an object region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also apply different pre-heating temperatures to different (horizontal) working areas as Lavi already discloses applying it to different layers and by applying the different pre-heating temperatures to different regions of the same layer, a person of ordinary skill could control the microstructure and create areas with fine grain microstructure (Lavi, paragraph [0069]). Further this would be controlling the pre-deposition temperature as a function of a position of the object region in the cast object, meeting the claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claims objections and 112 rejections, the amendments and cancellation of claims cure the previous issues. However, see new objections and 112(b) rejections above.
With respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 over Lavi, applicant argues that Lavi does not teach the formation of a melt pool prior to deposition as Lavi teaches pre-heating to minimize thermal shocks and reduce temperature gradient (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, last paragraph). Applicant argues that Lavi discloses a separate joining step that can involve melting a portion of the interface between two cast layers and therefore a person of ordinary skill would not read the preheating as forming a melt pool (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, 1st full paragraph).
However, the fact that Lavi discloses a different embodiment where a joining step takes place does not teach away from the pre-heating step which encompasses the formation of a melt pool. "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), see MPEP § 2141.02(VI). "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)), see MPEP § 2123(I). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), see MPEP§ 2123(II). Further, it is unclear how a melt pool where the temperature of the already deposited metal would be closer to the metal which is being deposited would not reduce thermal shocks and the temperature gradient.
Applicant also argues that Lavi’s numerical example teaches away from formation of a melt pool as preheating to 600-700°C combined with pouring molten metal at 1000-1300°C only works with higher melting point metals such as cast iron while not with aluminum (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs). Applicant argues that the instant invention is solving a different problem of ensuring liquid phase bonding which is fundamentally different and not taught by Lavi (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, last full paragraph).
However, as applicant notes, cast iron melts in a range of 1100-1200°C. As cast iron and aluminum are the only metals that are given as examples in Lavi and cast iron does not melt at 1000°C, the pouring temperature in Lavi is broader than merely applying to cast iron as applicant argues. Thus, preheating aluminum to 600-700°C does create a melt pool meeting the claim limitations. In response to applicant's argument that the formation of the melt pool ensuring liquid phase bonding, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to the rejection of claims 3-4 over Lavi and Ma, applicant argues that these are non-analogous art as Lavi relates to an additive casting method while Ma relates to a laser-based directed energy deposition and a person of ordinary skill seeking to improve Lavi would not look to Ma’s complex laser-specific heating system and both references address different problems with Lavi concerned with thermal shock in casting while Ma addresses residual stress in parts (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, 1st four paragraphs).
In response to applicant's argument that Ma is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ma relates to additive manufacturing and specifically to electromagnetic induction heating-assisted laser additive manufacturing of a titanium matrix composite (Ma, paragraph [0001]). As both Ma and Lavi both relate to annealing treatments in additive manufacturing processes, it is not clear why the explicit method of additive manufacturing would make the teachings of pre- and post-heating relevant to one another. Thus, the teachings concerning the inductive heaters in Ma would be relevant to the pre- and post-heating conducted in Lavi as both are related to pre- and post-treatment of an additively manufactured part.
With respect to new claim 40, it is agreed that Lavi does not suggest or teach liquifying a layer of 2 to 20 mm thickness (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, last full paragraph). However, see 112(a) written description rejection above concerning support for this method.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights