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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-31 are examined in this office action as claims 15-20 are directed to a non-elected invention, claims 1, 4-11, and 13-14 are canceled and claims 21-31 are new in the reply dated 4/22/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-31 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 21 recites the limitation “so that a greater proportion of the first powder is dispensed when the predicted stress in a certain region of the article is high and a greater proportion of the second powder is dispensed when the predicted stress in a certain region of the article is low” The terms “high” and “low” in claim 21 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “low” are 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 the claim directs that stress in regions of the part is predicted, it is not clear what constitutes “high” nor “low” stress in a region of the part and thus it is unclear where the different proportions of the first and second powder are dispensed. Claims 22-31 are also rejected as they depend from claim 21 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 21 recites the limitations “a greater proportion of the first powder is dispensed” and “a greater proportion of the second powder is dispensed”. It is not clear what this proportion relates to. It is not clear whether this relates to the proportion of the mass of the two powders, their volume, the number of particles, or some other proportion of the first powder to the second powder. Claims 22-31 are also rejected as they depend from claim 21 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0059315 A1 (as cited on IDS received 6/17/22) of Baudimont in view of US 2018/0339466 A1 of El Naga and US 2019/0057546 A1 of Neidig.
As to claim 21, it is not clear what is meant by the terms “high” and “low”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring the determination of some level of stress. Further, it is not clear what is meant by “proportion, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring some proportion of amounts of mass of the first to second powders.
Baudimont discloses a method of fabricating a part by additive manufacturing (Baudimont, paragraph [0001]), meeting the limitation of producing an article by additive manufacturing. Baudimont discloses modifying a digital model by adding a sacrificial balancing fraction configured so as to balance the residual stresses that appear in the part while it is being fabricated (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]), meeting the claim limitation of predicting regions of stress in the article as by balancing these stresses, they are necessarily predicted as the model in Baudimont is created before the part is constructed. Baudimont discloses orienting the digital model relative to a construction direction for constructing the part (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]), meeting the claim limitation of selecting an optimal build orientation for the article as by orienting the model to a construction direction, this is optimizing the orientation of the model and thereby the article. Baudimont discloses dispensing layers of powder of a material on a fabrication plate followed by solidification (Baudimont, paragraphs [0006] and [0009]), meeting the claim limitation of dispensing a first powder and forming an article as by solidification, an article is formed from the powder. Baudimont discloses during the orientation step where the model is oriented in such a manner as to minimize the height of the part in the construction direction which serves to minimize the number of layers and thus the quantity of powder used and also the time required for fabrication (Baudimont, paragraph [0042]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the orientation of the build is optimized so that reduced quantities of the powder which has not been recycled or which has been recycled to a lesser extent is dispensed during the build.
Baudimont discloses modifying a digital model by adding a sacrificial balancing fraction configured so as to balance the residual stresses that appear in the part while it is being fabricated (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]) and as this modification is done to balance residual stresses, Baudimont is disclosing where stress analysis is done on a model of the article to predict regions of stress in the article in use, meeting the claim limitations.
Baudimont discloses modifying a digital model by adding a sacrificial balancing fraction configured so as to balance the residual stresses that appear in the part while it is being fabricated (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]), thus meeting where stress in the region of the article is predicted.
El Naga teaches where doses of the first metal powder which is non-recycled or recycled “new” powder and doses of a second metal powder which is decontaminated or recycled powder is controlled based on a ratio of amounts of the first and second metal powders (El Naga, paragraph [0079]). El Naga also teaches that the ratio can be based on a number of characteristics of the powder such as flowability, amount of contamination, and print history (El Naga, paragraphs [0068] – [0071]), meeting the claim limitation of where the ratio of powders is varied according to a predicted or analyzed condition of the recycled metal powder and where the ratio is the same or different between layers.
As Baudimont already discloses modifying the digital model based on the stresses in the part and El Naga discloses modifying the ratio of new and recycled powders to one another, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of non-recycled or recycled “new” powder to the decontaminated and recycled powder as disclosed in El Naga in response to the stresses in the part as disclosed in Baudimont, thereby enabling the use of recycled powders and reducing costs and reducing negative environmental impact (El Naga, paragraph [0091]) and also preventing interactions with substances that can negatively impact the performance of a powder bed system (El Naga, paragraph [0057]) , thus preventing undesired stresses in the part.
However, Baudimont does not disclose where the stress analysis of the part is performed using finite element analysis.
Neidig relates to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (Neidig, paragraph [0001]). Neidig teaches a method of determining optimal orientations of the part or component during the construction process (Neidig, paragraph [0004]). Neidig teaches where finite element analysis is used to determine optimal part orientation (Neidig, claims 1-2). Neidig teaches performing a finite element analysis only where boundary parameter differentiation is detected (Neidig, paragraph [0017]). Neidig teaches that this method results in significantly less computational time being required (Neidig, paragraph [0017]).
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 the use of finite element analysis as disclosed by Neidig into the method of orienting the part disclosed in Baudimont, thereby reducing the computational time being required (Neidig, paragraph [0017]).
As to claim 22, Baudimont discloses the use computer assisted design (CAD) software in order to define the best position and the best orientation for the part for the purpose of fabricating it layer by layer (Baudimont, paragraph [0016]), where orienting the part would necessarily encompass rotating the model as this is a function of manipulating a model of a part to achieve an optimized orientation.
As to claim 23, Baudimont discloses where the model is oriented in such a manner as to minimize the number of fabrication supports and/or to minimize their sizes (Baudimont, paragraph [0041]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the orientation of the build is further optimized to minimize support structure volume.
As to claim 24, Baudimont discloses where the model is oriented in such a manner as to minimize the number of fabrication supports and/or to minimize their sizes (Baudimont, paragraph [0041]), meeting the claim limitation of being self-supporting as by minimizing the supports, this means that the part is supporting itself without additional supports.
As to claim 25, El Naga teaches where doses of the first metal powder which is non-recycled or recycled “new” powder and doses of a second metal powder which is decontaminated or recycled powder is controlled based on a ratio of amounts of the first and second metal powders (El Naga, paragraph [0079]).
As to claim 26, Baudimont discloses dispensing layers of powder of a material on a fabrication plate followed by solidification (Baudimont, paragraphs [0006] and [0009]), however Baudimont does not disclose where there is a first and second powder that both comprise recycled powders.
El Naga relates to the same field of endeavor of material handling in Additive Manufacturing systems (El Naga, paragraph [0001]). El Naga teaches where metal powder that has not been fused after the printing operation is collected in a chamber and if the level of contamination is too high for reuse, the powder can be dumped through a first port in the chamber that leads to a recycling system that can, for example, melt the powder and create new powder from the liquid metal (El Naga, paragraph [0044]). El Naga teaches where new powder formed in this manner can be mixed with powder that has already been used in one or more print operations can be reused by mixing the powder with new powder in an appropriate ratio (El Naga, paragraph [0071]), meeting the claim limitation of where the first powder and the second powder are recycled powders as the “new powder” can be recycled by remelting and the second powder is merely reused. El Naga teaches that this process promotes efficient reuse, recycling, etc., of powder and can offer cost savings for PBF systems and reduce negative environmental impact of such systems (El Naga, paragraph [0091]).
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 recycled new powder and a powder that has already been used in one or more print operations as taught by El Naga for a powder used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed in Baudimont, thereby reducing costs and reducing negative environmental impact (El Naga, paragraph [0091]).
As to claim 27, El Naga teaches where the non-recycled or recycled “new” powder is dispensed from a first container (1523) and the second recycled powder is dispensed from a second container (1519) onto a build platform (El Naga, paragraph [0088] and FIG. 15), meeting the limitation of where mixing occurs once the powders are deposited on the build platform.
As to claim 28, El Naga teaches where the non-recycled or recycled “new” powder is mixed with the decontaminated or recycled powder in a powder pipe (1527) (El Naga, paragraph [0088]), meeting the claim limitation of where the mixing occurs prior to dispensing of the metal powders onto the build platform.
As to claim 29, as Baudimont already discloses modifying the digital model based on the stresses in the part and El Naga discloses modifying the ratio of new and recycled powders to one another, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of non-recycled or recycled “new” powder to the decontaminated and recycled powder based on a number of characteristics of the powder such as flowability, amount of contamination, and print history as disclosed in El Naga in response to the stresses in the part as disclosed in Baudimont, thereby enabling the use of recycled powders and reducing costs and reducing negative environmental impact (El Naga, paragraph [0091]) and also preventing interactions with substances that can negatively impact the performance of a powder bed system (El Naga, paragraph [0057]) , thus preventing undesired stresses in the part.
As to claim 30, as the combination of Baudimont, El Naga and Neidig teach the modification of proportions of powders to one another, there would necessarily be either where the quantity of the first powder and the quantity of the second powder in one layer is the same or different to the quantities of the first powder and the second powder in a previous layer. Further, as this claim describes the two states that the quantities of powders can be in between two layers – the same quantities or different quantities – it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select between these two options to thereby preventing undesired stresses in the part.
As to claim 31, Baudimont disclose where the powder used is a nickel-based powder (Baudimont, paragraph [0065]), meeting the claim limitation where the first powder comprises metal powder. As El Naga teaches where doses of the first metal powder which is non-recycled or recycled “new” powder and doses of a second metal powder which is decontaminated or recycled powder is controlled based on a ratio of amounts of the first and second metal powders (El Naga, paragraph [0079]), this means that the recycled powder in the combination of these references would be nickel powder thus meeting the limitation where the second powder comprises metal powder.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments have cured the previous issues, however see new 112(b) rejections above.
With respect to the 101 rejection, while the use of a computerized method does not differentiate this from being an abstract idea without significantly more, the recitation requiring both a first and second powder with different reuse cycles to be dispensed are not essential and fundamental in carrying out additive manufacturing.
With respect to the 103 rejection over Baudimont and El Naga, applicant argues that Baudimont’s analysis relates only to the stresses arising during the build processes itself rather than the stresses in the article in use (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6, 2nd – 3rd paragraphs).
However, it is clear from Baudimont that the analysis of stress during building of the part is inherently tied to the stresses in the finished part. Baudimont notes that “Mass disparities, as a result in particular from asymmetries of the part, lead to residual stresses accumulating in certain zones of the part, which residual stresses then lead to deformations: these poorly balanced residual stresses thus give rise to geometrical dispersions that are responsible for the defects observed in the resulting parts.” Thus it is clear that the analysis in Baudimont is both to the part as it is being built as well as it is being used.
Applicant argues that Baudimont is silent concerning build orientation selection and selective powder application (Applicant’s remarks. Pg 6, 4th paragraph). Applicant argues that while El Naga teaches a ratio of recycled powders based on powder-centric characteristics, it does not teach modifying this with relation to the part (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6, last paragraph). Applicant notes that El Naga does not perform stress analysis on the article and is silent concerning the cooperation between the build orientation selection and the selective powder allocation (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, 1st paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that the properties for variance of the ratio of powders from El Naga must be incorporated into Baudimont, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As El Naga teaches applying a ratio of virgin to recycled powders in different portions of the part and Baudimont teaches modifying the build of the part based upon predicted areas of stress in the part, it is obvious to combine these teachings to apply a ratio of virgin to recycled powders to regions of higher and lower stress to thereby reduce the cost of the part and increase the strength in the areas undergoing the highest stress. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 at (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