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 .
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.
Claims 17-32 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 claims 17, 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. The claims do not set forth any type of material, elements or even metals, the amounts of each, or the combinations of materials required to obtain a product sufficient to be used within the claimed invention.
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. Applicant does not disclose if the remaining powder has to be a metal powder or if it may consist of any other material or combinations of materials. 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. 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 17, 20, and 27.
Further to this point, claims 17, 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 17, 20, and, 27. Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 28-32 are also rejected as they depend on claims 17, 20, or 27.
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 17-32 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.
Claims 17, 20, and 27 recite the term “the defect preparation powder”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. It is also unclear if “the defect preparation powder” refers to the “satellite powder”, the “hollow powder”, a combination of both, or a separate and different powder. For the purposes of prior art, this will be interpreted as encompassing the combination of satellite powder and hollow powder.
Claims 17, 20, and 27 recite the limitations “defining a defect area” and “defining a volume percentage of the gas pore defects in the defect area”. It is unclear how the term “defining” modifies the defect area and 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.
Claims 17, 20, and 27 recite the phrase “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”. It is unclear how the term “adjusting” modifies the proportion of satellite powder, proportion of hollow powder, and the process parameters. It is unclear how the proportions or parameters much be adjusted in relation to the volume percentage of the gas pores. It is unclear which parameters must be increased or decreased in order to achieve an increase or decrease in the volume percentage of the gas pore defects. It is also unclear if the process parameters are to be adjusted inside the ranges for the claim parameters listed in claim 1, or if they are being adjusted from outside the claimed ranges.
Claims 17, 20, and 27 recite the phrase “based on laser melting deposition”. It is unclear how the term “based on” modifies laser melting deposition. It is unclear if the claimed process must be laser melting deposition or not. It is unclear what aspects of laser melting depositing must be present for the process to be considered “based on” laser melting deposition.
Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 28-32 are rejected as they depend on claims 17, 20, or 27.
Claims 20 and 27 recite the term “the specific layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear which layers correspond to “the specific layers”. For the purposes of prior art, this will be interpreted as encompassing any layers. Claims 21-26, 28-32 are also rejected as they depend on claims 20 and 27.
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 17-20, 21-23, 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.
Independent Claim 17 recites a method for preparing prefabricated gas pore defects, comprising: defining a defect 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, based on laser melting deposition, printing the defect area layer by layer by using the defect preparation powder and the process parameters of defect preparation, wherein a particle size of the defect preparation powder is between 45 µm and 106 µm, 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 0.5mm-lmm and layer thickness of 0.15mm- 0.2mm.
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 borders 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 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]. 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 17. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected as they depend on claim 17.
Claim 18 further limits claim 17 by claiming the control of the 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 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]. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar covers all limitations of claim 18.
Claim 19 further limits claim 17 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 19.
Independent Claim 20 recites 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 the defect preparation powder and the process parameters of defect preparation are used to print the specific layers relative to the defect area, wherein a particle size of the defect preparation powder is between 45 u m and 106 u 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 0.5mm-lmm and layer thickness of 0.15mm- 0.2mm.
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 discloses 3D modeling, and that a model is established in this work to predict the actual build height for the different experimental runs, section [3.1]. 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 borders 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 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]. 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. Claims 21-26 are rejected as the depend on claim 20.
Claim 22 further limits claim 20 by claiming that the control of the 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 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]. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar covers all limitations of claim 22.
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 further in view of McFaraland further in view of 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 the defect preparation powder and the process parameters of defect preparation are used to print the specific layers relative to the defect area, wherein a particle size of the defect preparation powder is between 45 u m and 106 u 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 0.5mm-lmm and layer thickness of 0.15mm- 0.2mm.
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 discloses 3D modeling, and that a model is established in this work to predict the actual build height for the different experimental runs, section [3.1]. 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 borders 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 does not teach the claimed layer thickness, spot diameter, scanning spacing, adjusting the proportion of satellite and hollow powder, or repaired parts.
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]. 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. Claims 28-32 are rejected as they depend on claim 27.
Claim 28 further limits claim 27 by claiming that the control of the 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 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]. Thus, Ng in view of Fu further in view of Nassar further in view of Courapied covers all limitations of claim 28.
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.
Conclusion
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