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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and species “a,” drawn to claims 1-7 and 10 in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the recited species are drawn to mutually exclusive compositions having different classification and requiring different fields of search and the recited groups are drawn to different statutory classes of invention having different classification and requiring different fields of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-9 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/3/2025.
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 1-7 and 10 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.
Claim 1 recites “an overhang feature formed from the second powder material proximate the second layer.” It is unclear if the second layer forms the overhang feature or whether the second layer is proximate to a separate layer forming the overhang feature. In the latter case, it is unclear what layer or layers form the overhang feature and whether the claimed product requires additional layer(s) (in addition to the recited first layer and second layer) that make up the overhang feature. Claims 2-7 and 10 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the additive depresses the melting temperature of the second powder,” however claim 1 from which it depends, recites “the second powder material including an additive configured to lower the melting temperature of the second powder material.” It is unclear if or how the limitation of claim 6 further limits the product of claim 1. In other words, it is unclear if claim 6 intends to require a different property or structure than that required by claim 1, and if so, the scope of such additional feature is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites “wherein the additive depresses the melting temperature of the second powder,” however claim 1 from which it depends, recites “the second powder material including an additive configured to lower the melting temperature of the second powder material.” Thus, claim 6 appears to be drawn to substantially the same additive property (lower/depressing the melting point/temperature of the second powder material. Claim 6, therefore, fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuwa et al. (WO 2008/146698 A1)(cited on IDS, including translation) in view of Crane (US 2022/0062996).
With respect to Claim 1, Fuwa teaches a part formed by a powder bed fusion additive manufacturing method, the part having an overhanging projection (i.e. an overhang feature) formed from one or more fused powder layers, wherein the projecting/overhanging layers are formed with a reduced thickness as compared to the non-overhanging layers below, with this arrangement tailored to reduce curl during solidification. (pgs. 3-5 of translation; Figs. 5-7). Fuwa teaches forming the part with a curved overhang feature “absent a downward facing surface feature,” the curve being as smooth as a layer-based additively manufacturing technique appears to allow and without downward facing defects, and thus, deemed to comprise an “overhang feature” having “a smooth underside.” (see Figs. 5-7). It is further noted that the claim, by reciting “in the absence of a downward facing surface feature…” makes optional the smooth underside of the overhang feature. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04.
Fuwa further teaches “it is desirable to change the energy density of the irradiated light beam in accordance with the thickness of the powder material layer. Thus, Fuwa teaches the benefit of forming overhanging features with a lower energy density corresponding to the reduced thickness of the layers forming the overhanging feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that a thinner additively manufactured layer would result in faster cooling due to the increased ratio of surface area to mass and the overall reduced mass relative to the thicker additively manufactured layers that do not comprise an overhanging feature.
Fuwa also teaches an embodiment wherein at least a first layer or a first portion of a layer is formed from a first metal powder material and a second layer or second portion of a layer is then additively formed from a second metal powder material. (pgs. 4-5 of translation). In particular, Fuwa teaches where “the plurality of sintered layers positioned at different heights are formed of different types of powder materials” and “it is preferable that the melting point of the powder material used in advance is higher than the melting point of the powder material used thereafter. As a result, it is possible to prevent the previously formed sintered layer from being re-melted before forming the later sintered layer, and as a result, it is possible to manufacture the three-dimensional shape molded object with high precision.” (pg. 4-5 of translation). Thus, Fuwa teaches forming first layers/portions of layers from a first powder material then subsequent layers/portions of layers with a second powder material having a lower melting point temperature than the first powder material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the two embodiments of Fuwa, teaching utilizing thinner layers to form overhanging features, such layers requiring lower energy and resulting in faster cooling, and forming subsequent layers in a build using lower melting point temperature powder to prevent previous layers from melting to successively form an overhang feature with reduced curl (and thus comprising a smooth underside), further enhanced by the prevention of droop and/or defects formed by unwanted re-melting of previously layers. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a product comprising a first layer(s) of a first powder material and second layer(s) comprising an overhanging feature from a second powder material having a lower melting point, in order to further reduce the energy density required to melt the layer, enhance cooling, and reduce defects in view of the teachings of Fuwa.
In summary, Fuwa makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a part having an overhang feature, the part comprising at least a first layer formed of a first powder material and a second layer formed from a second powder material, wherein the second powder material has a lower melting point temperature than the first material, and wherein an overhang feature formed from the second powder material includes a smooth underside in the absence of a downward facing surface feature. Fuwa is silent, however, as to the manner and/or composition of the second material providing it a lower melting point temperature (i.e. silent as to an additive configured to lower the melting temperature).
Crane teaches a part formed by powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process, wherein a part is formed of a metal powder material and wherein at least portions of the part comprise the powder material with an additive/dopant comprising a sintering aid that lowers the melting point temperature of the powder material and improved densification. (para. 8-10, 93, 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the additively manufactured part of Fuwa to form the second powder material comprising a dopant added to the first powder material, the dopant comprising a sintering aid that lowers the melting point of the second powder material, as taught by Crane, in order to enable precise control over the composition and resulting melting point temperature of the additively manufactured layers forming the part.
With respect to Claim 2, Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the first powder comprises a metal powder, for example, a nickel-based alloy. (see rejection of claim 1 above; pg. 9 of translation).
With respect to Claim 3, Fuwa teaches wherein the first powder material may comprise a nickel-based alloy powder. (see pg. 9 of translation).
With respect to Claim 4, Fuwa teaches wherein the first powder material may comprise a nickel or nickel-based alloy powder (see pg. of translation; rejection of claim 3) and Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the second powder material may comprise the first powder material with the addition of an additive/dopant selected to lower the melting point of the composition. (see rejection of claim 1 above). Thus, Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the second powder may comprise a nickel-based alloy.
With respect to Claims 5-6, Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the additive is configured to dope the second powder such that the second powder is melted and fused at a lower melting point temperature and at a lower energy level than the first powder. (see rejection of claim 1 above). It is further noted that claim 5, in particular, includes limitation drawn to the process (e.g. laser energy level) of how the part is formed and thus, such limitations represent product-by-process limitations.
According to MPEP § 2113, "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
With respect to Claim 10, Fuwa, as detailed with respect to Claim 1, teaches a product wherein layers comprising an overhanging feature may be formed of a second powder material and layers not comprising an overhanging feature may be formed of a first powder material. As further layers formed above those comprising an overhanging feature would not comprise an overhanging feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a part having additional layer (i.e. top layer) above an overhanging feature formed of a first powder material. Moreover, the claim does not require any particular shape or structure of the top layer and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the part of Fuwa in view of Crane, formed by multi-material additive manufacturing technique is capable of forming an arbitrary arrangement of layers and thus, selecting any number of layers and their respective compositions would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuwa et al. (WO 2008/146698 A1)(cited on IDS) in view of Crane (US 2022/0062996), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Seleznev (US 11707781).
With respect to Claim 7, Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the second powder material may comprise a nickel-based alloy and a dopant sintering aid selected as a melting point depressant. (see rejection of claims 1-6 above, incorporated here by reference). The references are silent as to the specific dopant sintering aid.
Seleznev teaches an additively manufactured part formed from a metallic powder material further comprising one or more sintering aids selected from boron, phosphorus, and silicon, wherein the sintering aid improves the density of the part. (col. 1, ln. 58 to col. 2, ln. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the part of Fuwa in view of Crane to select a known sintering aid for a part additively formed from a metal powder, including boron, phosphorus, and/or silicon, as taught by Seleznev, in order to enhance the density of the part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0348770, teaching an additively manufactured part having at least some portions formed from a metal powder mixed with a sintering aid/melting point depressant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735