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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on February 19th, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on November 19th, 2024.
Objections of claims 4-6, 10, 12 and 19 due to minor informalities
Rejections of claims 2, 3, 10, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of claims 1-5, 8-11, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) are withdrawn in light of the amendments
Rejections of claims 6, 7, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments to claim 1 filed February 19th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends claim 1 with the limitation “the controller is further configured to store data acquired by the at least one measurement device and to cross-reference the data against later-identified failure locations identified in the object to determine a likely cause of failure of the object” and argues the prior art of record fails to teach this limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Georgeson discloses in specification paragraph [0083], “The measurements may be stored in the memory 202 and accessed during the profile comparison performed by the control system 200 during manufacturing of an in-work article 460 for assessing whether one or more bead forming parameters 240 require adjustment in order to reduce a nonconformity 430 in the in-work article 460 to a size no larger than the nonconformity 430 at a corresponding simulated profile location 498 in the simulated article 492”. Specification paragraph [0062] of Georgeson further discloses, “As described in greater detail below, a nonconformity 430 in the in-work article 460 may include a gap 432 (e.g., FIGS. 17 and 19) between a new bead 324 and an existing bead 340, a notch 420 (e.g., FIG. 21) exceeding a threshold notch size (e.g., 0.10 inch) between existing beads 340, a bead mislocation 434 (e.g., FIG. 16), an existing bead 340 that is a mis-sized bead 408 (e.g., FIGS. 18 and 20), and/or a void 442 (e.g., FIG. 21) exceeding a threshold size (e.g., 0.10 inch)”. The nonconformity 430 in the in-work article 460 corresponds to the “cause of failure of the object” and the control system 200, comprising the controller, stores measurements and references those measurements when assessing whether one or more bead forming parameters 240 require adjustment in order to reduce the nonconformity 430. As such, the prior art reference of Georgeson discloses the limitation as required by amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see remarks filed February 19th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference of Ikeda et al. (WO 2021117468 A1) and is provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, lines 7-9, “the bead temperature of the bead” should say “the bead temperature of the bead of flowable material” for claim language consistency.
Claim 20, lines 2-3, “the bead temperature of the bead” should say “the bead temperature of the bead of flowable material” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-13, 19 and 20 are drawn to a system for additive manufacturing, wherein the limitations are apparatus limitations. Accordingly, claims 1-13, 19 and 20 are being considered as apparatus claims.
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 1, 3 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a temperature of a previously-applied layer of the object at contact location where the bead is to be applied to the previously-applied layer” in lines 6-8. The specification fails to provide explicit written description support for this limitation. Specification paragraph [0033] only provides support for measuring a temperature of the previously printed layers.
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 1, 3, 8-11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson et al. (US 20200368970 A1; hereafter Georgeson), in view of Ikeda et al. (WO 2021117468 A1; hereafter Ikeda; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Georgeson discloses a system for additive manufacturing (Fig. 1; [0010]), comprising:
an extrusion apparatus ([0070]; extrusion apparatus, not shown, loads pellets of material into a hopper and melts into molten material that may be delivered by a pump) configured to receive a raw material ([0070]; pellets of material) and to output an extrudate ([0070]; molten material);
a print head (Fig. 4; [0058]; printhead 140) configured to receive the extrudate (Fig. 4; [0058, 0070]; printhead 140 receives molten material and dispenses it) and to output a bead (Fig. 4; [0058]; new bead 324) to form an object (Fig. 4; [0058]; in-work article 460);
and a quality control system ([0061]; control system 200 adjusts one or more bead forming parameters in order to reduce nonconformity) having at least one measurement device ([0072-0073]; one or more profilometers 180) for measuring at least a bead width ([0078]) and a bead height ([0078]) of the bead;
and a controller ([0062]; controller 206) communicatively coupled to the quality control system (Fig. 2) and being configured to adjust a setting ([0062]; bead forming parameters 240) of the extrusion apparatus ([0080]; bead forming parameters 240 may comprise extrusion temperature) and/or the print head ([0079]; bead forming parameters 240 may comprise head path of the printhead 140) in real-time ([0058-0059, 0062]; control system 200 continuously or periodically performs a profile comparison and adjusts bead forming parameters 240 according to said comparison) in response to a measurement from the at least one measurement device ([0058-0059, 0062]; said profile comparison comprises measurement by profilometer 180);
wherein the controller is further configured to store data acquired by the at least one measurement device ([0083]; the measurements may be stored in the memory 202 and accessed by the control system 200) and to cross-reference the data ([0083]; the measurements may be accessed during the profile comparison performed by the control system 200) against later-identified failure locations identified in the object to determine a likely cause of failure of the object ([0062, 0083]; the nonconformity 430 in the in-work article 460 corresponds to the “cause of failure of the object” and the control system 200, comprising the controller, stores measurements and references those measurements when assessing whether one or more bead forming parameters 240 require adjustment in order to reduce the nonconformity 430).
Georgeson does not disclose measuring a bead temperature of the bead and a temperature of a previously-applied layer of the object at contact location where the bead is to be applied to the previously-applied layer.
However, Ikeda teaches a system for additive manufacturing ([0001]), comprising a measurement device ([0018]; temperature sensor 40) for measuring a bead temperature of a bead ([0018]; 40 may measuring the temperature of the molten bead MB) and a temperature of a previously-applied layer of an object at contact location where the bead is to be applied to the previously-applied layer ([0018]; 40 measures the temperature of the intended formation position P where the molten bead MB of the next layer is to be formed on the molten bead MB of the previous layer).
Georgeson and Ikeda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Georgeson with the teachings of Ikeda to provide measuring a bead temperature of the bead and a temperature of a previously-applied layer of the object at contact location where the bead is to be applied to the previously-applied layer. Doing so would improve temperature control of the bead and therefore improve manufacturing efficiency and allow for stably manufacturing the object (Ikeda [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Georgeson discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein: the controller is configured to compare the measurement to a measurement range stored in memory (Georgeson Fig. 2; [0058-0059]; control system 200 performs profile comparison between measurement from profilometer 180 to reference profile data 472), and to adjust the setting of the extrusion apparatus and/or the print head in real-time if the measurement is outside of the measurement range (Georgeson [0062, 0079-0080]; control system 200 adjusts bead forming parameters 240 based on profile comparison, said bead forming parameters 240 include extrusion temperature and head path of the printhead 140).
Regarding claim 8, modified Georgeson discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein: the system further includes a conduit (Georgeson Marked Fig. 4; conduit) fluidly connected to the extrusion apparatus (Georgeson Marked Fig. 4; [0070]; extrusion apparatus, not shown, loads pellets of material into a hopper and melts into molten material that may be delivered by a pump through the conduit) and to the print head (Georgeson Marked Fig. 4; conduit delivers molten material to printhead 140), the conduit being configured to receive the extrudate from the extrusion apparatus and to convey the extrudate to the print head (Georgeson Marked Fig. 4; [0070]; extrusion apparatus, not shown, loads pellets of material into a hopper and melts into molten material that may be delivered by a pump through the conduit to printhead 140).
PNG
media_image1.png
689
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, modified Georgeson discloses the system of claim 8, wherein: the conduit includes a controllable heating element (Georgeson Marked Fig. 4; [0070-0071, 0080]; printhead 140 comprises part of the conduit and a resistance heating element for heating the printhead 140, said printhead 140 is maintained at a temperature set according to desired bead forming parameters 240 by control system) for selectively controlling a temperature (Georgeson Marked Fig. 4; [0070-0071, 0080]; printhead 140 comprises part of the conduit and a resistance heating element for heating the printhead 140, said printhead 140 is maintained at a temperature set according to desired bead forming parameters 240 to control a material extrusion temperature) of the extrudate passing through the conduit.
Regarding claim 10, modified Georgeson discloses the system of claim 9, wherein: a controller (Georgeson [0062]; controller 206) is configured to adjust a setting of the controllable heating element of the conduit (Georgeson Marked Fig. 4; [0070-0071, 0080]; printhead 140 comprises part of the conduit and a resistance heating element for heating the printhead 140, said printhead 140 is maintained at a temperature set according to desired bead forming parameters 240 to control a material extrusion temperature) in real-time in response to a measurement from the at least one measurement device (Georgeson [0058-0059, 0062, 0080]; control system 200 adjusts bead forming parameters 240 based on profile comparison, said profile comparison comprises measurement by profilometer 180).
Regarding claim 11, modified Georgeson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the at least one measurement device is a laser measurement device (Georgeson [0073]; profilometer 180 may be a laser profilometer).
Regarding claim 19, Georgeson discloses a system for additive manufacturing (Fig. 1; [0010]), comprising:
a print head (Fig. 4; [0058]; printhead 140) configured to output a bead of flowable material (Fig. 4; [0058, 0070]; new bead 324 of molten material) to form an object (Fig. 4; [0058]; in-work article 460);
and a quality control system ([0061]; control system 200 adjusts one or more bead forming parameters in order to reduce nonconformity) having at least one measurement device ([0072-0073]; one or more profilometers 180) for obtaining a measurement ([0058]; profilometer 180 measure in-work cross-sectional profile 464) of the bead of flowable material;
wherein the quality control system is configured to compare the measurement of the bead of flowable material with a reference measurement stored in memory (Fig. 2; [0058-0059]; control system 200 performs profile comparison between measurement from profilometer 180 to reference profile data 472) and to adjust the system for additive manufacturing in real-time based on the comparison ([0058-0059, 0062]; control system 200 continuously or periodically performs a profile comparison and adjusts bead forming parameters 240 according to said comparison).
Georgeson does not disclose obtaining a measurement of a bead temperature of the bead of flowable material and a temperature of a previously applied layer of the object and comparing the bead temperature of the bead of flowable material and the temperature of the previously applied layer to determine a temperature gradient between the bead temperature of the bead of flowable material and the temperature of the previously applied layer and adjusting the system based on the temperature gradient.
However, Ikeda teaches a system for additive manufacturing ([0001]), comprising a measurement device ([0018]; temperature sensor 40) for measuring a bead temperature of a bead ([0018]; 40 may measuring the temperature of the molten bead MB) and a temperature of a previously-applied layer of an object at contact location where the bead is to be applied to the previously-applied layer ([0018]; 40 measures the temperature of the intended formation position P where the molten bead MB of the next layer is to be formed on the molten bead MB of the previous layer) and a control unit ([0021]; control unit 70) for comparing the bead temperature of the bead and the temperature of the previously applied layer ([0024]; control unit 70 compares measured temperatures to reference values) to determine a temperature gradient ([0024]; measured temperature being not equal to or higher than reference values) between the bead temperature of the bead and the temperature of the previously applied layer and adjusting the system based on the temperature gradient ([0024]; control unit 70 controls cooling of molten bead based on comparison to reference value).
Georgeson and Ikeda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Georgeson with the teachings of Ikeda to provide obtaining a measurement of a bead temperature of the bead of flowable material and a temperature of a previously applied layer of the object and comparing the bead temperature of the bead of flowable material and the temperature of the previously applied layer to determine a temperature gradient between the bead temperature of the bead of flowable material and the temperature of the previously applied layer and adjusting the system based on the temperature gradient. Doing so would improve temperature control of the bead and therefore improve manufacturing efficiency and allow for stably manufacturing the object (Ikeda [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Georgeson discloses the system of claim 19.
Modified Georgeson does not disclose the quality control system is configured to modify at least one of the bead temperature of the bead and/or the temperature of the previously applied layer of the object if the temperature gradient is outside a predetermined range in order to bring the temperature gradient within the predetermined range.
However, Ikeda further teaches modifying the bead temperature of the bead and the temperature of the previously applied layer of the object if the temperature gradient is outside a predetermined range in order to bring the temperature gradient within the predetermined range ([0024]; if the measured temperature is not equal to or higher than the third reference value, the control unit 70 controls the preheating the intended formation position P of the molten bead MB of the (n-1)th layer Ln-1; if the measured temperature is not equal to or lower than the fourth reference value, the control unit 70 controls the cooling unit 30 to spray a coolant onto the molten bead MB to cool it).
Georgeson and Ikeda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Georgeson with the teachings of Ikeda to provide the quality control system is configured to modify at least one of the bead temperature of the bead and/or the temperature of the previously applied layer of the object if the temperature gradient is outside a predetermined range in order to bring the temperature gradient within the predetermined range. Doing so would improve temperature control of the bead and therefore improve manufacturing efficiency and allow for stably manufacturing the object (Ikeda [0006]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson et al. (US 20200368970 A1; hereafter Georgeson), in view of Ikeda et al. (WO 2021117468 A1; hereafter Ikeda; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nikshi et al. (US 20210370609 A1; hereafter Nikshi).
Regarding claim 12, modified Georgeson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the at least one measurement device includes three measurement devices (Georgeson Fig. 4; [0073]; three profilometers 180).
Modified Georgeson does not disclose the measurement device includes a camera, said camera having a viewing angle of at least 120 degrees.
However, Nikshi teaches a system for additive manufacturing (Fig. 15-16), comprising a print head (Fig. 15; [0043]; nozzle 101) configured to output a bead (Fig. 15; [0047]; beads 5a) to form an object ([0036]; structure) and three measurement devices (Fig. 15-16; [0050]; profilometers 210a-c) comprising three cameras (Fig. 7, 15-16; [0050]; each profilometer comprises a camera 220, therefore three cameras) configured to measure a width ([0046]) and a height ([0046]) of the bead. Nikshi further teaches the three measurement devices can be rotatably positioned around the print head (Fig. 15-16; [0059-0060]) to adjust a viewing angle of each measurement device (Fig. 15-16; [0059-0060]; adjusting an angle of a profilometer around the nozzle 101 would adjust a viewing angle of the camera in the profilometer).
Georgeson and Nikshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of extrusion-based 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Georgeson with the teachings of Nikshi to provide the measurement device includes a camera, said camera having an adjustable viewing angle. Doing so would allow accurate cross-section profile measurements to be taken of the bead in any direction (Nikshi [0059-0060]).
Modified Georgeson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose each camera has a viewing angle of at least 120 degree. As the viewing area of the cross-section of the bead is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting a viewing angle of the camera (Nikshi [0059-0060]; Fig. 15-16), with the viewing area of the cross-section of the bead increasing as the viewing angle of the camera increases, the viewing angle of the camera would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed viewing angle cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the viewing angle of the camera in the system of additive manufacturing of modified Georgeson to obtain the desired viewing area of the cross-section of the bead, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson et al. (US 20200368970 A1; hereafter Georgeson), in view of Ikeda et al. (WO 2021117468 A1; hereafter Ikeda; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dunn et al. (US 20180056608 A1; hereafter Dunn).
Regarding claim 13, modified Georgeson discloses the system of claim 1.
Modified Georgeson does not disclose a cooling nozzle adjacent to the print head, the cooling nozzle being configured to output pressurized air to cool at least one of the bead and/or a substrate in response to data acquired by the at least one measurement device.
However, Dunn teaches a system for additive manufacturing (Fig. 1), comprising a print head (Fig. 2A; [0046]; print head 18) configured to output a bead ([0056]; extrudate from nozzle 14) to form an object ([0042]), a measurement device ([0059]; sensor 170) configured to determine a temperature of the bead ([0059]; sensor 170 monitors a temperature of the extrudate) and a cooling nozzle ([0056]; blower 150 outputs a cooling gas) adjacent to the print head (Fig. 2A; [0056]; blower 150 is adjacent print head 18), the cooling nozzle being configured to output pressurized air to cool the bead (Fig. 2A; [0056]; blower 150 directs a cooling gas towards the print head 18 to cause the extrudate to cool). Dunn further teaches a controller assembly ([0049]; controller assembly 38) that monitors and controls the components of the system for additive manufacturing ([0049]), wherein the controller assembly is in communication with the various sensors ([0050]).
Georgeson and Dunn are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of extrusion-based 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Georgeson with the teachings of Dunn to provide a cooling nozzle adjacent to the print head, the cooling nozzle being configured to output pressurized air to cool the bead in response to data acquired by the at least one measurement device. Doing so would provide greater real-time control of the bead forming parameters, such as bead temperature, for the purpose of improving quality of the printed object by reducing nonconformity (Georgeson [0061]).
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754