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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 21 January 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments, regarding the 35 USC 112 (a)/(b) rejection for claim 9 as a result of interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), filed 17 October 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 112a/b still stand.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 21 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after considering the prior art references, one of the previously identified references that was used in a dependent claim teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 21 January 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heat control apparatus” in claim 1.
In claim 1, the generic placeholder is “apparatus” and the functional limitations attributed to the apparatus are “heat” and “control.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the heating function are “one or more heaters.” Claims 6-8 recite sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for the “heat control apparatus” in these claims.
In claim 9, the generic placeholder is “apparatus” and the functional limitations are “heat,” “control,” and “used to maintain the component at a solutioning temperature.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites “wherein the external heat control apparatus is used to maintain the component at a solutioning temperature,” but the Specification does not disclose how the “external heat control apparatus” is able to maintain a temperature. Although the Specification discloses that the external control apparatus can be a heater and lists several types of heaters, which are recited in dependent claims 6-8, the Specification does not disclose any structure capable of maintaining the temperature. At a minimum, in order to maintain a specific temperature, there should be a thermometer and a temperature sensor, but the Specification discloses neither. As a result, the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what an “external heat control apparatus” is or that the Applicant possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
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.
In claim 9, the limitation “heat control apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakimov et al. (US-20160074965-A1, effective filing date of 8 April 2013; hereinafter Jakimov ‘965) in view of Jakimov et al. (US-20160368052-A1, effective filing date of 20 June 2013; hereinafter Jakimov ‘052), Koerber et al. (US-20160107263-A1, effective filing date of 28 June 2013), and Kelly et al. (US-20070267109-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jakimov ‘965 teaches a method of making a component (“production method,” title; turbine blade 4, fig. 1), comprising:
depositing a powder (“Powder is provided in the powder bed chamber 2 above the platform 5,” para 0033) on a workplane (plane on the top surface of the powder bed chamber 2, fig. 1; para 0033);
directing a beam (laser beam 7, fig. 1) from a directed energy source (“radiation source,” para 0017) to fuse the powder (“melt,” para 0043) in a pattern (track 18, fig. 3) corresponding to a cross-sectional layer of the component (fig. 2 is a plan view, para 0038; layers of the components 4 in fig. 2 are construed as the “cross-sectional layer of the component;” fig. 3 is a detailed view of fig. 2, para 0031);
repeating in a cycle the steps of depositing and fusing to build up the component in a layer- by layer fashion (“incrementally in steps and overfilling with powder 6 as well as by melting the powder layer by layer,” para 0033; construed as repeating the steps of depositing powder and melting the powder layer-by-layer in order to build up the component 4, fig. 1);
during the cycle of depositing and melting (para 0033), using an external heat control apparatus (coils 3, fig. 1) separate from the directed energy source (the coils are separate from the radiation source, para 0013), and
using a retractable induction heater (coil 13, fig. 1; coil 13 can be placed on the “side of the component or the turbine blade,” para 0034; shown in fig. 1; the coil 13 is construed as being retractable) comprising an induction coil (para 0034) to directly control solidification of the component (last sentence of para 0044) by:
moving the retractable induction heater during the cycle of depositing and melting (“the laser beam 7 moves along the laser path 18 in the illustration of FIG. 3 from left to right, so that the induction coil 13 is also moved to the right,” para 0044; construed as movement during melting, para 0044) into an extended position (position of coil 13, figs. 2-3) over the workplane (plane of regions 16 and 17, fig. 3) and activating to heat an exposed layer of the component (“preheated,” para 0041), and
moving the retractable induction heater (“arranged….on the side,” para 0019) from the extended position to a retracted position (position of coil 13, fig. 1) away from the workplane so that a next layer of powder can be applied on the workplane (“any of the induction coils may be disposed above and/or at the side of the powder bed chamber or chambers,” para 0019; construed such that when coil 13 is along the side, as shown in fig. 1, the coil does not interfere with powder that is provided to the powder bed chamber 2, fig. 1; para 0034).
Jakimov ‘965, figs. 1-2
PNG
media_image1.png
846
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
705
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jakimov ‘965 does not explicitly disclose a metallic powder (although Jakimov ‘965 teaches powder that is used to make a turbine blade, Jakimov ‘965 does not explicitly disclose that the powder is metallic); an induction coil connected to an electric power source to directly control remelt of the component (although Jakimov ‘965 teaches that power is provided to the induction coils, para 0027, Jakimov ‘965 does not explicitly disclose an electric power source); wherein the retractable induction heater is positioned over a build platform and above the workplane by an arm connected to an actuator, wherein the electric power source is provided between the arm and the induction coil, wherein moving the induction heater between the extended and retracted positions is performed using the actuator.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Jakimov ‘052 teaches wherein the retractable induction heater (coil 28, fig. 1) is positioned by an arm (coater 14, fig. 1) connected to an actuator (moving unit 26, fig. 1; the moving unit is construed as being an actuator); wherein moving the induction heater between the extended and retracted positions is performed using the actuator (para 0031).
Jakimov ‘052, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
639
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Jakimov ‘052, by using a moving unit 26 and a coater 14, as taught by Jakimov ‘052, to move the coil 13 along the rail 11, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, in order to use a moving unit that enables relative movement of the coil, for the advantage of moving the coil using a simple constructive structure that can move the coil to reach anywhere on the component platform (Jakimov ‘052, para 0013).
Jakimov ‘965 / Jakimov ‘052 do not explicitly disclose a metallic powder; an induction coil connected to an electric power source to directly control remelt of the component; wherein the electric power source is provided between the arm and the induction coil.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Koerber teaches a metallic powder (metallic powder 3, fig. 1); an induction coil (inductive conductors 21, fig. 1) connected to an electric power source (voltage-generating device 20, fig. 1) to directly control remelt of the component (“remelted and solidified individual layers,” para 0046).
Koerber, fig. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
641
966
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Koerber, by using metallic powder, as taught by Koerber, to form the turbine blade, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, and by using a voltage-generating device 20, as taught by Koerber, to provide power to the coils 3 and 13, as taught by Jakimov ‘965 in order to use a voltage generating device to provide alternating current, which generates a field causing the component to receive heating, and to remelt powder layers that have already solidified with the uppermost layer that is newly applied, for the advantages of remelting layers that create a cohesive bond between the layers and to control the heat distribution, which prevents the formation of cracks or coarse-grain formations in the metallic powder, because when metallic powder is melted, the powder experiences unwanted metal phases during the heating process, which can be mitigated by controlling the heat distribution applied to the powder (Koerber, paras 0003, 0016, 0049, and 0051).
Jakimov ‘965 / Jakimov ‘052 / Koerber do not explicitly disclose wherein the electric power source is provided between the arm and the induction coil.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of manufacturing turbine blades, Kelly teaches wherein the electric power source (power supply 48, fig. 4; “three induction coils 46 connected to a power supply 48,” para 0034) is provided between the arm and the induction coil (the power supply is construed as being located on the moving unit 26, which is between the coater 14 and the coil 28, as taught by Jakimov ‘052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965 / Jakimov ‘052 / Koerber, in view of the teachings of Kelly, by placing the voltage-generating device 20, as taught by Koerber, in the moving unit 26, as taught by Jakimov ‘052, in order to locate the power supply near the induction coil, for the advantage of supplying power via cables into the coil using a sealed power supply because such sealing arrangements are well known in the art, such that an uninterrupted source of power is supplied, providing uniform heating of the airfoil portion (Kelly, para 0034).
Kelly, fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
848
584
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jakimov ‘965 teaches when the retractable induction heater is moved into the extended position (figs. 2-3). Jakimov ‘965 does not explicitly disclose further comprising: continuously remelting the exposed layer with the directed energy source; and stopping the continuous remelting of the exposed layer with the directed energy source.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Koerber teaches further comprising: continuously remelting the exposed layer (“continuous,” para 0006; “Selective laser melting involves a material powder 3 being remelted in layers by means of a laser beam 5,” para 0045; construed such that continuous remelting occurs while the laser beam 5 is provided to position 6, fig. 1) with the directed energy source (source that provide laser beam 5, fig. 1); and stopping the continuous remelting of the exposed layer with the directed energy source (“remelted in layers by means of a laser beam,” para 0045; “Once the material powder in this first layer of the powder bed has been remelted by the laser at the necessary positions, following the desired contour of the component being produced, and solidified to form a first solid material layer, the base plate is lowered,” para 0003; construed such that remelting by the laser is stopped when the base plate is lowered and a new layer is deposited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Koerber, by using the high-energy beam 7, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, to continuously remelt layers that have already solidified for each layer, as taught by Koerber, in order to remelt powder layers that have already solidified with the uppermost layer that is newly applied, for the advantage of creating a cohesive bond between the layers by lowering the platform and depositing powder in steps so that each individual layer is melted or remelted (Koerber, paras 0003, 0049, and 0051; Jakimov ‘965, para 0033).
Regarding claim 3, Jakimov ‘965 teaches wherein the powder and component are supported on a build platform (platform 5, fig. 1) which is moveable along a vertical axis (vertical axis through the piston 14, fig. 1; para 0033).
Regarding claim 4, Jakimov ‘965 teaches further comprising lowering the build platform after each step of fusing the powder by a selected layer increment (“lowering the platform 5 incrementally in steps,” para 0033).
Regarding claim 6, Jakimov ‘965 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the external heat control apparatus comprises a heater surrounding the component.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Koerber teaches wherein the external heat control apparatus (conductors 21, fig. 1) comprises a heater (“induction heating unit,” para 0021) surrounding the component (component 2, fig. 1; para 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Koerber, by placing the coil 3, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, inside the powder bed 3 around the component 2, as taught by Koerber, in order to move the coil closer to the generated component to provide local melting to the powder bed, for the advantage of improving the quality of the generated component by precisely controlling the heating because the conductor is positioned at the smallest possible distance from the already completed area of the component (Koerber, para 0033).
Regarding claim 7, Jakimov ‘965 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the external heat control apparatus comprises a quartz lamp positioned near the component.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of manufacturing turbine blades, Kelly teaches wherein the external heat control apparatus comprises a quartz lamp positioned near the component (alternatively instead of coils 46, “quartz lamps” can be used, para 0034; coils 46 are near the blade 2, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Kelly, by using quartz lamps to provide heating, as taught by Kelly, instead of the coil 3, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one heater known in the art for another with predictable results (the modification will not change the heat that is applied, but will continue to enable the component to be heated).
Regarding claim 8, Jakimov ‘965 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the external heat control apparatus comprises at least one induction coil surrounding the component.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Koerber teaches wherein the external heat control apparatus (conductors 21, fig. 1) comprises at least one induction coil (“windings or loops,” para 0023) surrounding the component (component 2, fig. 1; para 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Koerber, by placing the coil 3, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, inside the powder bed 3 around the component 2, as taught by Koerber, in order to move the coil closer to the generated component to provide local melting to the powder bed, for the advantage of improving the quality of the generated component by precisely controlling the heating because the conductor is positioned at the smallest possible distance from the already completed area of the component (Koerber, para 0033).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jakimov ‘965 in view Jakimov ‘052, Koerber, and Kelly as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Koerber teaches wherein the external heat control apparatus (inductive conductors 21, fig. 1) is used to maintain the component at a solutioning temperature (“heated to temperatures of up to 1000° C,” para 0051; this temperature is construed as a solutioning temperature).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakimov et al. (US-20160074965-A1, effective filing date of 8 April 2013; hereinafter Jakimov ‘965) in view of Jakimov et al. (US-20160368052-A1, effective filing date of 20 June 2013; hereinafter Jakimov ‘052), Koerber et al. (US-20160107263-A1, effective filing date of 28 June 2013), and Kelly et al. (US-20070267109-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gindorf et al. (US-20100181298-A1).
Jakimov ‘965 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the external heat control apparatus comprises a layer of thermal insulation surrounding the component.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of manufacturing turbine blades, Gindorf teaches wherein the external heat control apparatus (coil 10, fig. 3) comprises a layer (isolator 32, fig. 3; construed as being a layer) of thermal insulation surrounding the component (“quartz glass,” para 0042; “high temperature resistant ceramic or a high temperature resistant synthetic,” para 0014).
Gindorf, fig. 3
PNG
media_image6.png
376
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Gindorf, by using the coil 10, as taught by Gindorf, as a substitute for the coil 3, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, in order to use a generic induction coil that provides uniform heating of metallic components, particular components of a gas turbine, resulting in better strength properties (Gindorf, paras 0006, 0008, and 0018).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakimov ‘965 et al. ((US-20160074965-A1, effective filing date of 8 April 2013) in view of Jakimov et al. (US-20160368052-A1, effective filing date of 20 June 2013; hereinafter Jakimov ‘052), Koerber et al. (US-20160107263-A1, effective filing date of 28 June 2013), and Kelly et al. (US-20070267109-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bamberg et al. (US-20140239553-A1, effective filing date of 22 Sep 2011).
Jakimov ‘965 teaches wherein the external heat control apparatus (coil 3, fig. 1) comprises an induction heater (“induction coil,” para 0044) including one or more individual induction coils (coil 3, fig. 1), and wherein the induction coils (coil 13, fig. 1) of the retractable induction heater are positioned over the build platform (platform 5, fig. 1) and above the workplane (in figs. 2-3 the coil 13 is positioned over the plane where powder is solidified).
Jakimov ‘965 does not explicitly disclose one or more individual induction coils surrounding a build platform and connected to an electric power source.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Bamberg teaches one or more individual induction coils (bottom two coils 7, fig.) surrounding a build platform (powder container 3, fig.) and connected to an electric power source (“high-frequency generators,” para 0026; construed as at least two power sources).
Bamberg, fig.
PNG
media_image7.png
1117
754
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jakimov ‘965, in view of the teachings of Bamberg, by using the bottom two coils 7 connected to high-frequency generators, as taught by Bamberg, instead of the coil 3, as taught by Jakimov ‘965, in order to generate heating using high-frequency voltages, which generates a field causing heating to occur just below a building plane so that the bed of powder remains heated at a temperature just below melting enabling the next layer in the building plane to immediately melt when a laser beam is directed to the layer (Bamberg, paras 0018 and 0028).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b)
Page 5 suggests that claim 9 has been amended to not include the limitation: “wherein the external heat control apparatus is used to maintain the component at a solutioning temperature.” However, this limitation is still present in claim 9.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Jakimov ‘965 combined with Jakimov ‘052, Koerber, and Kelly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US-20130156637-A1) teach induction coils for airfoil casting.
Holcomb et al. (US-20140363327-A1) teach loops for inductors.
Burlee et al. (US-9797253-B2) teach an arm for an induction coil.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights