DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 20, 21, 23-27, and 29-32 remain pending in the application. Claims 17-19, 22, and 28 have been canceled. No new claims have been added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 20, 21, 23-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for Hastelloy X and GH3536 alloy powders, does not reasonably provide enablement for any other material with the claimed required properties. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of 20 and 27 encompasses a method for preparing built-in gas pore defects. The specification discloses sufficient information for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method for Hastelloy X and GH3536 alloy powders. However, the specification does not provide direction on how to use the claimed method for a material other than Hastelloy X or GH3536 powder. At the time of filing, the state of the art was such that one of ordinary skill would not be able to use the invention as claimed without specifying the material to be used. The instant claims do not limit the material in any way other than reciting that the defect powder is a metal powder. While the claims now set forth that the defect preparation powder is metal powder, the claimed parameters would not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method on any metal powder.
It appears the claimed process parameters are specific to GH3536 or Hastelloy X and that they would not necessarily result in a well-defined part with predefined pores if another material or materials were to be used. Thus, the disclosed examples of Hastelloy X and GH3536 do not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Furthermore, the claims only limit 57.9-68.1% of the powder to a satellite or hollow powder. The remaining percentage is not disclosed by applicant. Even in the working examples using Hastelloy X and GH3536, applicant does not disclose what material or materials may be included in the remaining percentage. The claims also limit the proportion of hollow powder to 2.9-3.1% even though page 19 of the instant specification shows the first embodiment with proportion of hollow powder equal to 1%. This falls outside the claimed range. Taking these factors into account, the amount of direction provided by the inventor is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claims 20 and 27.
Further to this point, claims 20 and 27 recite “adjusting a proportion of satellite powder, a proportion of hollow powder and process parameters of defect preparation according to the volume percentage of the gas pore defects”. Applicant does not disclose how the specific claimed parameters must be adjusted in relation to the volume percentage of the gas pore defects. While applicant discloses that by reducing the ratio of P/v, the volume percentage of the gas defects is increased, the specific relationship between the other claimed parameters (proportion of satellite powder, proportion of hollow powder, powder feeding rate, spot diameter, scanning spacing, layer thickness) and the volume percentage of the gas defects is not mentioned. There is no teaching or guidance as to which parameters must be increased or decreased in order to achieve an increase or decrease in the volume percentage of gas pore defects. While the exact gas pore density will depend on the claimed parameters, the claims specify broad ranges for these including a range of almost a factor of 2 for the laser power and powder feeding rate, and a factor of 2 for scanning rate, spot diameter, and scanning spacing.
Furthermore, applicant discloses that in one embodiment the method of adjusting the process parameters of defect preparation is determined by trial and error, and that a parameter database can be provided to record the change in the proportion of the gas pore defects after each time the processing parameter is adjusted. If an outside unspecified database is needed to see the effect of changing the process parameters, the specification would not provide one of ordinary skill in the art with the necessary guidance to adjust each parameter. While applicant mentions that a database may be provided, an actual database with the relevant process parameter information is not disclosed. Therefore, an undue amount of experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claims 20 and 27. Claims 21, 23-26 and 29-32 are also rejected as they depend on claims 20 or 27.
Claims 20, 21, 23-27, and 29-32 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.
Claims 20 and 27 recite the limitation “defining a volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area”. It is unclear how the term “defining” modifies the volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area. It is unclear what actions or steps must be performed in order to “define” the defect area or the volume percentage of gas pore defects. No positive steps delimiting how the “defining” is actually practiced are described. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Claims 21, 23-27, and 29-32 are also rejected as they depend on claims 20 and 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. "Porosity Formation and Gas Bubble Retention in Laser Metal Deposition", Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing, Springer-Verlag, May 19, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 3, 9 pages in view of CN110340372 of Fu, and further in view of Nassar et al., "Sensing Defects During Directed-Energy Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts Using Optical Emissions Spectroscopy", 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 6, 2014, 10 pages.
Claim 20 claims a method for preparing a prefabricated part with built-in gas pore defects, based on laser melting deposition, comprising: obtaining a 3D model of the prefabricated part separating the 3D model into at least one defect area and one forming area, defining a volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area, adjusting a proportion of satellite powder, a proportion of hollow powder and process parameters of defect preparation according to the volume percentage of the gas pore defects, printing the prefabricated part layer by layer, where a defect preparation powder comprising the proportion of satellite powder and the proportion of hollow powder, and the process parameters of defect preparation are used to print the specific layers relative to the defect area, wherein the defect preparation powder is metal powder, a particle size thereof the defect preparation powder is between 45 p m and 106 p m, the proportion of satellite powder is 55-65% and the proportion of hollow powder is 2.9-3.1%, the process parameters of defect preparation comprises: laser power of 600W-1000W, scanning rate of400mm/min-800 mm/min, powder feeding rate of 12g/min-20g/min, spot diameter of lmm-2mm, scanning spacing of 0.5mm-lmm and layer thickness of 0.15mm-0.2mmi wherein the control of process parameters of defect preparation comprises: the volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area is controlled by adjusting the ratio of the laser power P to the scanning rate v, where the volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area increases by reducing the ratio of P/v.
Ng teaches porosity formation and gas bubble retention in laser metal deposition in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ng discloses a method for preparing prefabricated gas pore defects, sections [2.1-2.3]. Ng teaches a sampling area equivalent to the claimed “defect area”, section [2.4], and adjusting the process parameters in relation to the amount of desired porosity, sections [abstract, 2.3, 2.5]. Ng teaches a particle size of 44-88 µm, section [2.2], laser power of 400-1000W, speed (scanning rate) of 400-800 mm/min, Table [2]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ng teaches a powder feeding rate of 2-10 g/min. This is close to the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed range and prior art range to have the same or similar properties therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2131.03 (III). Ng teaches that gas porosity tended to decrease with increasing speed and increasing power, as this provides more energy to melt the powder and therefore reduces the likelihood of porosity, section [Introduction]. Ng teaches that it is generally put forward that a higher heat input would reduce the rate of solidification, allowing the gas bubbles to escape from the molten pool before it solidifies, section[3.2.2]. Thus, Ng teaches reducing laser power to increase pore defects. Ng does not teach the claimed layer thickness, spot diameter, scanning spacing or adjusting the proportion of satellite and hollow powder.
Fu teaches laser melting deposition additive manufacturing method by adopting PREP TC4 spherical powder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fu teaches adjusting the proportion of satellite powder and hollow powder to control porosity, Para[0004,0005,0006]. Fu discloses that the invention has no hollow powder and can effectively avoid the defects introduced by the pores and pores in the hollow powder during the laser additive manufacturing process, Para[0032]. Fu teaches that a powder that has a high hollow ratio, a high powder content of the satellite ball, a low sphericity of the powder, and poor fluidity, which causes defects such as uneven powder feeding and pore formation during the forming process, which seriously affects the shape of the molded part of the laser melt deposition additive, Pg[2]. ]. Thus, Fu covers all proportions ranging from no hollow powder to a high hollow powder ratio, which would encompass the claimed proportion Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the proportion of satellite powder and hollow powder to control the porosity during the additive manufacturing process. Fu also teaches a layer thickness of 0.9-2 mm and a spot diameter of 2-6 mm, Para[0021]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Fu teaches that a large layer thickness and the spot diameter greatly increases the forming efficiency of the alloy, Para[0095]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a layer thickness and spot diameter in the claimed range in order to increase forming efficiency.
Nassar teaches sensing defects during directed-energy additive manufacturing of metal parts using optical emissions spectroscopy in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nassar teaches a scanning spacing of 0.914 – 1.829 mm, section [2]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Nassar teaches that this geometry was purposely chosen to introduce
lack-of-fusion defects between neighboring hatches within the widely-spaced-hatch regions, section [2]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed scanning spacing in order to introduce lack of fusion defects between neighboring hatches.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method disclosed in Ng using the proportion adjustments of the satellite and hollow powder, the layer thickness, and the spot diameter taught in Fu, and the scanning spacing taught by Nassar in order to control the porosity, increase forming efficiency, and introduce lack of fusion defects in the printed object. Therefore, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar covers all limitations of claim 20.
Claim 23 further limits claim 20 by claiming that the defect preparation powder is prepared by gas atomization method.
Ng teaches gas atomized powder, section [3.2.2]. Therefore, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar covers all limitations of claim 23.
Claim 26 further limits claim 20 by claiming a prefabricated part with built-in gas pore defects, wherein, the prefabricated part is prepared by the method according to claim 20.
Ng teaches a laser deposited part made from the disclosed method, section [Introduction]. Therefore, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar covers all limitations of claim 26.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. "Porosity Formation and Gas Bubble Retention in Laser Metal Deposition", Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing, Springer-Verlag, May 19, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 3, 9 pages in view of CN110340372 of Fu further in view of Nassar et al., "Sensing Defects During Directed-Energy Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts Using Optical Emissions Spectroscopy", 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 6, 2014, 10 pages further in view of CN109338357 of Li.
Claim 21 further limits claim 20 by claiming that the 3D model is separated into a plurality of defect areas and forming area, where the proportion of satellite powder, the proportion of hollow powder and the process parameters of defect preparation are set separately for each defect area.
Li teaches laser melting deposition repairing method for metal casting defect portion in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Li discloses separating a metal casting into a plurality of defect areas and repairing the areas, Para[0038]. Li teaches that the repair efficiency of manual repair welding is more than 2 times, the labor intensity and workload of the operator are greatly reduced, and the qualified rate of repair of the defective parts is greatly improved, Para[0004]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method disclosed in Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar with a plurality of defect areas and forming areas taught by Li in order to increase repair efficiency. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Li covers all limitations of claim 21.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. "Porosity Formation and Gas Bubble Retention in Laser Metal Deposition", Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing, Springer-Verlag, May 19, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 3, 9 pages in view of CN110340372 of Fu further in view of Nassar et al., "Sensing Defects During Directed-Energy Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts Using Optical Emissions Spectroscopy", 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 6, 2014, 10 pages further in view of WO2017055854 of McFarland further in view of US10737323 of Torabi.
Claim 24 further limits claim 20 by claiming that the method further comprises processing the 3D models of the defect area and the forming area, where model processing comprises: allowance addition processing, layer separation and cutting processing, and path planning processing.
Ng teaches the commonly preferred tool path of cross hatching. Thus, Ng teaches path planning processing, section[Introduction].
McFarland discloses improvements in or relating to the control of a chain of machines, including additive manufacturing machine, in the manufacture of a workpiece in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. McFarland teaches that the additive build design may comprise the addition of an allowance to the workpiece, for example, such that workpiece can be manufactured in the additive manufacturing machine, Para[0012].
Torabi teaches devices and methods for three-dimensional printing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Torabi discloses that all the layers may be cut in a single pass with a cutting tool to produce the resulting object, with added resolution and that the layers are cut out of plane, eliminating the need for horizontal layers. This approach of cutting multiple layers at once with a 3-axis or 5-axis machine may eliminate the need for stair stepping, and may eliminate the visibility of layers in the resulting object, Para[0182].
Therefore, it would be obvious to conduct the method disclosed in Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar with the allowance addition processing taught by McFarland and the layer separation and cutting processing disclosed in Torabi to produce an additively manufactured part with added resolution. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar, McFaraland and Torabi covers all limitations of claim 24.
Claims 25, 27-29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. "Porosity Formation and Gas Bubble Retention in Laser Metal Deposition", Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing, Springer-Verlag, May 19, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 3, 9 pages in view of CN110340372 of Fu further in view of Nassar et al., "Sensing Defects During Directed-Energy Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts Using Optical Emissions Spectroscopy", 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 6, 2014, 10 pages further in view of WO2020002805 of Courapied.
Claim 25 further limits claim 20 by further comprising heat treatment of the printed prefabricated part, removing the printed prefabricated part from substrates, and surface treatment of the printed prefabricated part.
Ng discloses printing the object on substrates, section [2.2].
Fu teaches heat treatment for stress treatment, Para[0014]. Fu discloses that after the stress-relieving heat treatment, the workpiece is obtained, Para[0015].
Courapied teaches a device and method for direct manufacturing by laser fusion of sprayed powder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Courapied discloses that LMD process (acronym of the English Laser Metallic Deposition) is an additive manufacturing process derived from cladding and laser reloading processes used until now for surface treatment or repair of parts metal, Para[0005]. Courapied teaches that the idea of using this process as a manufacturing process appeared at the end of the twentieth century with, in particular, the development of Laser Engineered Net Shaping, Para[0005].
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the method disclosed in Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar with the heat treatment taught by Fu and the surface treatment taught by Courapied for in order to repair metal parts. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied covers all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 27 claims a method for preparing a repaired part with built-in gas pore defects, based on the technique of laser melting deposition, the repaired part comprises a part body and a repair area, the repair area is used to repair a defect or damage of the part body, the method comprising: obtaining a 3D model of the part body and the repair area respectively, obtaining the part body, separating the 3D model of the repair area into at least one defect area and one forming area, defining a volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area, adjusting a proportion of satellite powder, a proportion of hollow powder and a process parameters of defect preparation according to the volume percentage of the gas pore defects, printing the repair area on the defect of the part body layer by layer, where a defect preparation powder comprising the proportion of satellite powder and the proportion of hollow powder, and the process parameters of defect preparation are used to print the specific layers relative to the defect area, wherein the defect preparation powder is metal powder, a particle size thereof the defect preparation powder is between 45 p m and 106 p m, the proportion of satellite powder is 55-65% and the proportion of hollow powder is 2.9-3.1%, the process parameters of defect preparation comprises: laser power of 600W-1000W, scanning rate of 400mm/min-800 mm/min, powder feeding rate of 12g/min-20g/min, spot diameter of lmm-2mm, scanning spacing of O.5mm-lmm and layer thickness of O.15mm-0.2mm wherein the control of process parameters of the defect preparation comprises: the volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area is controlled by adjusting the ratio of the laser power P to the scanning rate v, where the volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area increases by reducing the ratio of P/v.
Ng teaches porosity formation and gas bubble retention in laser metal deposition in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ng discloses a method for preparing prefabricated gas pore defects, sections [2.1-2.3]. Ng teaches a sampling area equivalent to the claimed “defect area”, section [2.4], and adjusting the process parameters in relation to the amount of desired porosity, sections [abstract, 2.3, 2.5]. Ng teaches a particle size of 44-88 µm, section [2.2], laser power of 400-1000W, speed (scanning rate) of 400-800 mm/min, Table [2]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ng teaches a powder feeding rate of 2-10 g/min. This is close to the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed range and prior art range to have the same or similar properties therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2131.03 (III). Ng teaches that gas porosity tended to decrease with increasing speed and increasing power, as this provides more energy to melt the powder and therefore reduces the likelihood of porosity, section [Introduction]. Ng teaches that it is generally put forward that a higher heat input would reduce the rate of solidification, allowing the gas bubbles to escape from the molten pool before it solidifies, section[3.2.2]. Thus, Ng teaches reducing laser power to increase pore defects. Ng does not teach repaired parts, the claimed layer thickness, spot diameter, scanning spacing or adjusting the proportion of satellite and hollow powder.
Fu teaches laser melting deposition additive manufacturing method by adopting PREP TC4 spherical powder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fu teaches adjusting the proportion of satellite powder and hollow powder to control porosity, Para[0004,0005,0006]. Fu discloses that the invention has no hollow powder and can effectively avoid the defects introduced by the pores and pores in the hollow powder during the laser additive manufacturing process, Para[0032]. Fu teaches that a powder that has a high hollow ratio, a high powder content of the satellite ball, a low sphericity of the powder, and poor fluidity, which causes defects such as uneven powder feeding and pore formation during the forming process, which seriously affects the shape of the molded part of the laser melt deposition additive, Pg[2]. ]. Thus, Fu covers all proportions ranging from no hollow powder to a high hollow powder ratio, which would encompass the claimed proportion Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the proportion of satellite powder and hollow powder to control the porosity during the additive manufacturing process. Fu also teaches a layer thickness of 0.9-2 mm and a spot diameter of 2-6 mm, Para[0021]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Fu teaches that a large layer thickness and the spot diameter greatly increases the forming efficiency of the alloy, Para[0095]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a layer thickness and spot diameter in the claimed range in order to increase forming efficiency.
Nassar teaches sensing defects during directed-energy additive manufacturing of metal parts using optical emissions spectroscopy in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nassar teaches a scanning spacing of 0.914 – 1.829 mm, section [2]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Nassar teaches that this geometry was purposely chosen to introduce lack-of-fusion defects between neighboring hatches within the widely-spaced-hatch regions, section [2]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed scanning spacing in order to introduce lack of fusion defects between neighboring hatches.
Courapied teaches repaired parts, Para[0005]. Courapied discloses a direct manufacturing process by laser also called LMD process (acronym of the English Laser Metallic Deposition) is an additive manufacturing process derived from cladding and laser reloading processes used until now for surface treatment or repair of parts metal, Para[0005].
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method disclosed in Ng using the proportion adjustments of the satellite and hollow powder, the layer thickness, and the spot diameter taught in Fu, and the scanning spacing taught by Nassar in order to control the porosity, increase forming efficiency, and introduce lack of fusion defects in the printed object. Based on the teaching of Courapied, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosed method for a repaired part. Therefore, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied covers all limitations of claim 27.
Claim 29 further limits claim 27 by claiming that the defect preparation powder is prepared by gas atomization method.
Ng teaches gas atomized powder, section [3.2.2]. Therefore, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied covers all limitations of claim 29.
Claim 32 further limits claim 27 by claiming heat treatment of the printed prefabricated part, and surface treatment of the printed prefabricated part.
Fu teaches heat treatment for stress treatment, Para[0014]. Fu discloses that after the stress-relieving heat treatment, the workpiece is obtained, Para[0015].
Courapied discloses that LMD process (acronym of the English Laser Metallic Deposition) is an additive manufacturing process derived from cladding and laser reloading processes used until now for surface treatment or repair of parts metal, Para[0005]. Courapied teaches that the idea of using this process as a manufacturing process appeared at the end of the twentieth century with, in particular, the development of Laser Engineered Net Shaping, Para[0005].
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the method disclosed in Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied with the heat treatment taught by Fu and the surface treatment taught by Courapied for in order to repair metal parts. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied covers all limitations of claim 32.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. "Porosity Formation and Gas Bubble Retention in Laser Metal Deposition", Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing, Springer-Verlag, May 19, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 3, 9 pages in view of CN110340372 of Fu further in view of Nassar et al., "Sensing Defects During Directed-Energy Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts Using Optical Emissions Spectroscopy", 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 6, 2014, 10 pages further in view of WO2020002805 of Courapied further in view of CN109338357 of Li further in view of CN101472798 of Roux.
Claim 30 further limits claim 27 by claiming that the defect of the part body includes casting defects, machining defects or service defects, and the method further comprises: slotting a complete part to obtain the part body.
Li teaches laser melting deposition repairing method for metal casting defect portion in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Li discloses that in order to overcome the problems existing in the prior art, the present invention provides a laser melting deposition repairing method for a defect portion of a metal casting, which is repaired by a laser melting deposition method by processing a region corresponding to an internal defect of the metal casting. The repair efficiency of manual repair welding is more than 2 times, the labor intensity and workload of the operator are greatly reduced, and the qualified rate of repair of the defective parts is greatly improved. The reliability of the repair process is high, the quality stability is good, and the manual repair welding is avoided. A large number of non-essential production costs during the repair welding process, Para[0004].
Roux teaches a process for cutting out a damaged area of an aircraft fuselage in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Roux discloses that advantageously, considering from the aspect of safety, can be the hole is re-slotting a few microns of hole, so it can improve the quality of the side surface of the hole, so as to reduce the risk of defect, Para[0025].
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method disclosed in Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied on a casting defect disclosed in Li using the slotting taught by Roux in order to increase efficiency and reduce the risk of defect. Therefore, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied further in view of Li covers all limitations of Claim 30.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. "Porosity Formation and Gas Bubble Retention in Laser Metal Deposition", Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing, Springer-Verlag, May 19, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 3, 9 pages in view of CN110340372 of Fu further in view of Nassar et al., "Sensing Defects During Directed-Energy Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts Using Optical Emissions Spectroscopy", 25th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 6, 2014, 10 pages further in view of WO2020002805 of Courapied further in view of WO201705584 of McFarland further in view of US10737323 of Torabi.
Claim 31 further limits claim 27 by further claiming processing the 3D models of the defect area and the forming area, where model processing comprises: allowance addition processing, layer separation and cutting processing, and path planning processing.
Ng teaches the commonly preferred tool path of cross hatching. Thus, Ng teaches path planning processing.
McFarland discloses improvements in or relating to the control of a chain of machines, including additive manufacturing machine, in the manufacture of a workpiece in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. McFarland teaches that the additive build design may comprise the addition of an allowance to the workpiece, for example, such that workpiece can be manufactured in the additive manufacturing machine, Para[0012].
Torabi teaches devices and methods for three-dimensional printing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Torabi discloses that all the layers may be cut in a single pass with a cutting tool to produce the resulting object, with added resolution and that the layers are cut out of plane, eliminating the need for horizontal layers. This approach of cutting multiple layers at once with a 3-axis or 5-axis machine may eliminate the need for stair stepping, and may eliminate the visibility of layers in the resulting object, Para[0182].
Therefore, it would be obvious to conduct the method disclosed in Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied with the allowance addition processing taught by McFarland and the layer separation and cutting processing disclosed in Torabi to produce an additively manufactured part with increased resolution. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied further in view of McFaraland further in view of Torabi covers all limitations of claim 31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, pages 7 and 8 of 14) that the 112(a) rejection should be withdrawn because the disclosure of the ranges for particle size and proportions of satellite and hollow powder would properly enable one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed method. This is not found persuasive as the ranges disclosed appear to only be specific to some of the discloses embodiments which use GH3536 or Hastelloy X. It does not appear that the claimed parameters would be enabled for any material. The first embodiment even uses a proportion of hollow powder of 1% which falls outside the claimed range. It would require an undue amount of experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to select any random material falling within the claimed parameter ranges and reasonably expect the material to possess the porosity results disclosed.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 11 of 14) Ng does not disclose 3D modeling but merely establishes a statistical prediction model. This is not found persuasive as Ng teaches depositing metal blocks with a z-axis increment setting that is obtained from a previously constructed model, section[2.3], by way of laser metal deposition which is a well-known 3D printing technology. Therefore, Ng does in fact disclose 3D modelling. Additionally, secondary reference CN109338357 of Li teaches that as parts are formed layer-by-layer, a 3D measurement of each layer or layer group is acquired. The as-built measurement data may be compared to the input geometrical description of the desired part shape. Comparing typically includes calculating a measured difference between the geometric description and the dimensional data. The measured difference may be used to affect further processing, Para[0006]. Thus, Li in addition to Ng, discloses 3D modelling.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 11 of 14) Ng’s teaching of a “sampling area” is not equivalent to the claimed “defect area” because the sampling area in Ng is used for metallographic testing after the completion of deposition. This is not found persuasive as Ng teaches depositing metal blocks with a z-axis increment setting that is obtained from a previously constructed model, section[2.3]. Ng cannot perform the final DOE without the information obtained from the second DOE. Therefore, the sampling area of Ng is in fact a pre-event, active, partitioned printing area like the claimed defect area.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 12 of 14) the powder feed rate of Ng of 2-10 g/min does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with the claimed range of 12-20 g/min. This is not found persuasive as even though the prior art range does not overlap with the claimed range, they are close enough to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, see MPEP 2144.05. The instant specification states at page 12 that an increased powder feeding rate can ensure the content of the gas pores by speeding up the solidification process such that the gas cannot be drained from the molten pool timely. Ng teaches that it can be deduced that the gas porosity increases with an increase in powder feed rate, section[3.2.2]. Therefore, since the instant specification and Ng both recite an increased powder feeding rate resulting in increased porosity, and both recite the general method of laser metal deposition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed range and prior art range to have the same or similar properties therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2131.03 (III).
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 12 of 14) amended claim 20 has 4 distinguishing features from Ng. The first feature, 3D modeling, is explained in the response to argument above. The second feature, a proportion of hollow to spherical powder, is disclosed by Fu. The third feature, the process parameters, are disclosed by Fu and Nassar. The fourth feature, reducing the ratio of P/v is taught by Ng as explained in the rejection of claim 20 above.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 12 and 13 of 14) the objective of Ng is to eliminate gas pores while the instant invention aims to create built in gas pores. This is not found persuasive as a reference can be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention even if it addresses a different problem, see MPEP 2141.01. Thus, Ng is still proper prior art since Ng disclosed gas porosity regardless of the final objective.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 12 of 14) Fu does not teach adjusting the proportion of satellite powder to hollow powder because Fu teaches an embodiment that is explicitly free of hollow powder. This is not found persuasive as Fu specifically teaches no hollow powder in that embodiment to effectively avoid the defects introduced by the pores and pores in the hollow powder during the laser additive manufacturing process, Pg[3]. Additionally, Fu teaches that a powder that has a high hollow ratio, a high powder content of the satellite ball, a low sphericity of the powder, and poor fluidity, which causes defects such as uneven powder feeding and pore formation during the forming process, which seriously affects the shape of the molded part of the laser melt deposition additive, Pg[2]. Therefore, Fu covers all proportions ranging from no hollow powder to a high hollow powder ratio, which would encompass the claimed proportion. From the teachings of Fu, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to consider that hollow powder causes porosity, and therefore it would be obvious to adjust the proportion of the hollow powder in order to change the amount of porosity. Thus, Fu does in fact teach adjusting the proportion of satellite and hollow powder.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 13 of 14) Fu does not disclose the aforementioned distinguishing features because the purpose of Fu is different than the purpose of the claimed invention. This is not found persuasive as a reference can be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention even if it addresses a different problem, see MPEP 2141.01. Thus, Fu does disclose the aforementioned distinguishing features as it is considered relevant prior art since Fu discloses gas porosity.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 13 of 14) Nassar does not teach the claimed scanning spacing because Nassar only studies lack of fusion defects and not gas pore defects and that there is a substantial difference in the purpose of the two documents. This is not found persuasive as a reference can be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention even if it addresses a different problem, see MPEP 2141.01. Thus, Nassar does disclose the claimed scanning spacing as it is considered relevant prior art since Nassar discloses defects related to additive manufacturing.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has attached previously-cited references that were inadvertently omitted in the non-final action. Reference Included: Ng, Nassar, CN110340372, CN109338357, WO2020002805, CN101472798, WO2017055854
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights