DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14, 16, and 20-24 are examined in this office action as claims 13 and 17 are directed to a withdrawn invention and claims 1 and 20-21 were amended in the reply dated 8.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102017213762 A1 (cited on IDS received 11/6/22) with reference to English translation of Haberland in view of US 2016/0045981 A1 of Zurecki.
As to claim 1, Haberland discloses generative production of a component using a first and second laser beam (Haberland, abstract). Haberland discloses a powder storage chamber 6 for receiving powdered component material 7 (Haberland, paragraph [0020] and Fig 1), meeting the limitation of a powder bed-based additive manufacturing and a layer composed of a pulverulent material. Haberland discloses where the laser beams 14 and 15 are directed onto the beam splitter 18 in such a way that the laser beam 14 of the processing laser 11, which is circular in cross section, is surrounded in a ring shape by the laser beam 15 of the preheating laser 12 and where the radiation intensity of the processing laser 11 is significantly higher than that of the preheating laser (Haberland, paragraph [0021] and Figs. 2 and 3), meeting the limitation of selective irradiation of a subarea of the at least a portion of the region with a first energy beam and a second energy beam, wherein the second energy beam surrounds the first energy beam in an annular ring-shape and wherein the first energy beam comprises a melting laser configured to heat a core of the subarea and wherein the second energy beam comprises a further laser beam configured to have a lower radiation intensity than the melting laser and configured to heat an annular ring-shape of the subarea that surrounds the core. Haberland teaches where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter (Haberland, paragraph [0013]), meeting the claim limitation of the first and second laser beam being jointly controlled by a common optical unit.
While Haberland does not explicitly state that at least a portion of the layer is heated to a temperature of at least one quarter of a temperature which the portion experiences as a result of the selective irradiation of the first energy beam, as Haberland teaches that the goal of the two lasers is to counteract high temperature gradients which lead to hot cracking (Haberland, paragraph [0022]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize the gradient to within at least one quarter of a temperature which the portion experiences as a result of the selective irradiation of the first energy beam as taught by Haberland to reduce temperature gradients and prevent cracking.
However, Haberland does not explicitly teach aselective heating of at least a portion of a layer composed of a pulverulent material nor where this is effected as a temperature between 400 and less than 500°C nor wherein the aselective heating is effected at a temperature between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material.
Zurecki relates to the same field of endeavor of three dimensional printing (Zurecki, paragraph [0002]) where the material being solidified includes nickel alloys (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]). Zurecki teaches pre-heating the powder bed to a temperature greater than 400°C (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]), overlapping the claimed range of aselective heating effected at a temperature of between 400°C and less than 500°C and wherein the aselective heating is effected at a temperature between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation of phase precipitates of the pulverant material as by heating to greater than 400°C it encompasses the entire possible claimed range of heating. Zurecki teaches that this improvement in 3D printing conditions reduces the need for and extent of post-processing (Zurecki, paragraph [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pre-heating the powder bed to a temperature 499°C as taught by Zurecki into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed in Haberland, thereby reduces the need for and extent of post-processing (Zurecki, paragraph [0007]).
As to claim 3, since Zurecki teaches heating the raw material to a temperature 499°C for the additive production of the component (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]), the heating laser beam in Boswell would necessarily selectively heat the layer to a temperature above 500°C, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 5, Zurecki teaches heating the raw material to a temperature 499°C for the additive production of the component (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]). While neither Haberland nor Zurecki states that the aselective heating is effected below a sintering temperature of the pulverulent material, this must be the case as if the aselective temperature is above the sintering temperature of the powder, the powder would sinter together into a block and there would not be layer-by-layer selective solidification that is required by powder bed additive manufacturing.
As to claims 7 and 14, the reason for carrying out an active method step does not limit a method claim. Thus, as Zurecki teaches heating the raw material to a temperature 499°C for the additive production of the component (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]), this meets the claim limitation as there is aselective heating. It is also noted that Zurecki teaches pre-heating the powder bed (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]) meeting the claim limitation where the aselective heating is carried out for the purpose of preheating.
As to claims 9 and 16, Haberland discloses where the component material is a difficult-to-weld alloy, in particular a hardening nickel-based superalloy, in particular with a high proportion of γ'-precipitates (Haberland, paragraph [0014]), which meets the claim 9 limitation of a superalloy and encompasses the claim 16 limitation of a ɣ’-hardening nickel-based superalloy.
As to claim 10, Haberland discloses where the finished component may be subjected to a thermal post-treatment, such as a HIP process (Haberland, paragraph [0024]), meeting the claim limitation of thermal after treatment.
As to claims 11 and 12, Haberland discloses where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter (Haberland, paragraph [0013]), meeting the claim limitations of a common optical unit and a semi-transparent beam splitter.
As to claim 20, Haberland discloses generative production of a component using a first and second laser beam (Haberland, abstract). Haberland discloses a powder storage chamber 6 for receiving powdered component material 7 (Haberland, paragraph [0020] and Fig 1), meeting the limitation of a powder bed-based additive manufacturing and a layer composed of a pulverulent material. Haberland discloses where the laser beams 14 and 15 are directed onto the beam splitter 18 in such a way that the laser beam 14 of the processing laser 11, which is circular in cross section, is surrounded in a ring shape by the laser beam 15 of the preheating laser 12 and where the radiation intensity of the processing laser 11 is significantly higher than that of the preheating laser (Haberland, paragraph [0021] and Figs. 2 and 3), meeting the limitation of selective irradiation of a subarea of the at least a portion of the region with a first energy beam and a second energy beam, wherein the second energy beam surrounds the first energy beam in an annular ring-shape and wherein the first energy beam comprises a melting laser configured to heat a core of the subarea and wherein the second energy beam comprises a further laser beam configured to have a lower radiation intensity than the melting laser and configured to heat an annular ring-shape of the subarea that surrounds the core and where the first energy beam is configured to heat a core of the subarea to a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature. Haberland teaches where the first and second laser beam are fed together to the optical unit via a semi-transparent beam splitter (Haberland, paragraph [0013]), meeting the claim limitation of their first and second laser beam being jointly controlled by a common optical unit.
However, Haberland does not explicitly teach aselective heating of at least a portion of a layer composed of a pulverulent material, nor wherein the first temperature is at least 400°C and less than 500°C; and wherein the first temperature is between 50°C and 100°C below an initial temperature for formation or precipitation of a gamma prime phase of the pulverant material.
Zurecki relates to the same field of endeavor of three dimensional printing (Zurecki, paragraph [0002]) where the material being solidified includes nickel alloys (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]). Zurecki teaches pre-heating the powder bed to a temperature greater than 400°C (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]), overlapping the claimed range of aselective heating effected at a temperature of between 400°C and less than 500°C as well as by heating to greater than 400°C it encompasses the entire possible claimed range of heating. Zurecki teaches that this improvement in 3D printing conditions reduces the need for and extent of post-processing (Zurecki, paragraph [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pre-heating the powder bed to a temperature 499°C as taught by Zurecki into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed in Haberland, thereby reduces the need for and extent of post-processing (Zurecki, paragraph [0007]).
As the combination of Haberland and Zurecki discloses aselective heating at 499°C, the second energy beam would necessarily heat the part of the subarea that surrounds the core to an intermediate temperature that is between the first temperature and the second temperature.
As to claim 21, Haberland discloses where the powdered component material is selectively melted (Haberland, paragraph [0022]), meeting the limitation where the second temperature is above a sintering or a solidus temperature of the pulverant material.
As to claim 22, as Zurecki teaches where the aselective heating is carried out at a temperature including 499°C (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]), this means that the intermediate temperature that the secondary laser would heat the powder to would necessarily be at least 500°C, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 23, Haberland discloses operating the processing laser in Gaussian mode and the preheating laser in the so-called donut or bagel mode (Haberland, paragraph [0009]), meeting the limitations of operating the first energy beam in Gaussian mode; and operating the second energy beam in donut mode.
As to claim 24, Haberland discloses where the second laser beam advantageously has a lower radiation intensity than the first laser beam in order to achieve a corresponding intensity gradient from the inside to the outside (Haberland, paragraph [0011] and FIG. 3), meeting the limitation of positioning a greatest radiation intensity of the first energy beam inside the annular ring-shape of the second energy beam.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102017213762 A1 (cited on IDS received 11/6/22) with reference to English translation of Haberland and US 2016/0045981 A1 of Zurecki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0193953 A1 of Boswell.
As to claim 6, Zurecki teaches pre-heating the powder bed to a temperature greater than 400°C (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]). However, Zurecki does not explicitly teach using a radiant heating facility, an infrared emitter, or by way of a heating of a build platform to carry out this aselective heating.
Boswell relates to the same field of endeavor of a powder bed additive layer manufacturing apparatus and method (Boswell, paragraph [0004]). Boswell discloses using resistance or induction heating to heat the fusible powder material (Boswell, paragraph [0040]). Boswell teaches that this controlled heating and cooling minimizes residual stresses in components manufactured by ALM methods (Boswell, paragraph [0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute induction heating as taught by Boswell into the method of preheating disclosed by the combination of Haberland and Zurecki as induction heating is a known means for heating a powder bed and this minimizes residual stresses in components manufactured by ALM methods (Boswell, paragraph [0010]).
As to claim 8, Zurecki teaches pre-heating the powder bed to a temperature greater than 400°C (Zurecki, paragraph [0024]). However, Zurecki does not explicitly teach where the aselective heating is carried out simultaneously with the selective irradiation of the subarea.
Boswell discloses heating each layer of fusible powder material during scanning by the fusing energy beam using resistance or induction heating (Boswell, paragraph [0040]), meeting the claim limitation of where the aselective heating is carried out simultaneously with the selective irradiation of the layer. Boswell teaches that this controlled heating and cooling minimizes residual stresses in components manufactured by ALM methods (Boswell, paragraph [0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add induction heating during the scanning by the fusing energy beam as taught by Boswell into the method of preheating disclosed by the combination of Haberland and Zurecki thereby minimizes residual stresses in components manufactured by ALM methods (Boswell, paragraph [0010]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 103 rejection over claims 1 and 20, applicant argues that as the added limitation was only previously rejected over Ott and Ott is not a part of the current rejection, this limitation should differentiate the claims over the art and applicant further notes that Ott discloses preheating of at least 500°C while the instant claims require less than 500°C (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, 1st paragraph).
However, Ott is not cited in the instant rejection and as Zurecki teaches an overlapping range for preheating, it is obvious to select within an overlapping range to reach the claimed invention. “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(I). Thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
