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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/4/23 and 12/27/24 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 62311348, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the ‘348 Application is silent as to anisotropic properties and fails to provide support for the limitation “such that the plurality of layers have anisotropic material properties” in claim 45.
Accordingly, claims 45-65 are given an effectively filed date of 10/10/2016.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 27-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/9/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, compressing the melt pool must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Wherein the melt pool is compressed by a trowel device attached to a print head, and wherein the feed wire is directed through the print head must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Wherein the step of compressing the melt pool further comprises containing the melt pool in a roller device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Wherein the roller device is attached to a print head, and wherein the feed wire is directed through the print head must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Wherein the step of applying the amount of heat to the portion of the one or more underlying layers of the metallic workpiece comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Wherein the step of cooling the deposited layer further comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claims 47 and 61-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 47 recites the limitation “wherein the step of monitoring the melt pool further comprises assessing a grain structure of the melt pool, wherein the real-time measurement comprises the grain structure of the melt pool”. The limitation “wherein the step of monitoring the melt pool further comprises assessing a grain structure of the melt pool, wherein the real-time measurement comprises the grain structure of the melt pool” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 61 recites the limitation “wherein the step of applying the amount of heat to the portion of the one or more underlying layers of the metallic workpiece comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool”. The instant specification states that “”In some aspects, methods disclosed herein comprise: applying an amount of heat to a portion of a work piece sufficient to melt the portion of the work piece thereby forming a melted portion of the work piece; depositing a deposition material to the melted portion of the work piece to form a layer of deposition material on the work piece; and cooling said layer of deposition material on the work piece to a crystallization state of the deposition material“ (paragraph [0004]). Paragraph [0004] is the only mention of “an amount of heat” in the specification and is silent to applying a compressive force to the melt pool. ”The limitation “wherein the step of applying the amount of heat to the portion of the one or more underlying layers of the metallic workpiece comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 62 recites the limitation “wherein the step of cooling the deposited layer further comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool”. The limitation “wherein the step of cooling the deposited layer further comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 45-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “a real time measurement of at least one of melt pool intensity, size …”. It is unclear what is intended by the limitation “melt pool intensity.” The instant specification does not provide any guidance as the meaning of the term. For the purposes of applying prior art, melt pool intensity will be interpreted as melt pool temperature. Claims 46-65 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 45.
Claim 47 recites the limitation “wherein the step of monitoring the melt pool further comprises assessing a grain structure of the melt pool, wherein the real-time measurement comprises the grain structure of the melt pool”. The melt pool, is by definition, melted. Melted metal does not have a grain structure. Accordingly, it is unclear how a real-time measurement can ascertain the grain structure of the melt pool.
Claim 61 recites the limitation “wherein the step of applying the amount of heat to the portion of the one or more underlying layers of the metallic workpiece comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool”. It is unclear how applying a compressive force to the melt pool would apply heat to the portion of the one or more underlying layers of the metallic workpiece. Accordingly, the scope of protection sought is unclear.
Claim 62 recites the limitation “wherein the step of cooling the deposited layer further comprises applying a compressive force to the melt pool”. It is unclear how applying a compressive force to the melt pool would cool the deposited layer. Accordingly, the scope of protection sought is unclear.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 45-50, 52-54, and 63-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu et al. (US 2017/0326681 A1), in view of Buller et al. (US 20170239752 A1), and Underwood, “Dynetics rocket breakthroughs rely on 3-D printing, new methods”, 2015. Made in Alabama, Alabama Department of Commerce, 2015, 4 pages, from IDS.
Regarding claims 45-46, Sidhu teaches “a method of forming an object by additive layer manufacturing” (which reads upon “an additive manufacturing method for forming a metal structure, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Sidhu teaches “adding material to the melted portion and moving the heat source relative to the workpiece whereby progressively to form a layer of material on the workpiece” (which reads upon “depositing a plurality of layers of a metallic deposition material to form a metal structure comprised of a plurality of layers such that the metal structure is defined by a layer-wise direction extending along the length of each of the layers and an interlayer direction extending transverse to the individual layers”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Sidhu teaches “providing material (e.g. metal or plastic) typically in the form of a powder or a wire, and, using a powerful heat source such as a laser beam, electron beam or an electric, or plasma welding arc, melting an amount of that material and depositing the melted material (e.g. on a base plate/work piece), and subsequently building layers of material upon each preceding layer” (which reads upon “metal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]). Sidhu teaches “applying, by a heat source, heat to a portion of a surface of a workpiece sufficient to melt said portion” (which reads upon “wherein the deposition comprises applying an amount of heat to a portion of one or more underlying layers of a metallic workpiece comprising a portion of the metal structure sufficient to melt a section of the one or more underlying layers thereby forming a melt pool”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Sidhu teaches that “the additive manufacturing method may be wire and arc manufacturing” (which reads upon “directing a feed wire of the metallic deposition material into the melt pool while moving at least one of the feed wire and the metallic workpiece relative to each other thereby depositing the metallic deposition material to form a deposited layer of the metallic deposition material on the portion of the one or more underlying layers of the metallic workpiece”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019]). Sidhu teaches “cooling the formed layer to bring at least part of the layer to a state of crystallisation” (which reads upon “cooling the deposited layer to solidify the deposited layer”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 46; paragraph [0011]). Sidhu teaches that “steps a) to d) are repeated as required whereby to form the object” (which reads upon “repeating the deposition to additively construct the metal structure”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Sidhu teaches that “variations in the treatment throughout the workpiece structure may be carried out in conjunction with variations in the deposited material, throughout the structure of the workpiece” (which reads upon “such that the plurality of layers have anisotropic material properties, wherein at least one deposition parameter selected from the group consisting of layer orientation, deposition direction, melt pool width, melt pool thickness, grain solidification, heat input, and alloy gradient is configured such that there is different compliance within the metal structure along the layer-wise direction than in the interlayer direction”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0063]).
Sidhu is silent regarding monitoring the melt pool throughout the deposition to provide a real-time measurement of at least one of melt pool intensity, size, lateral location, and height location relative to the metallic workpiece, and controlling the applying, directing and cooling based on the real-time measurement using closed loop feedback.
Buller is similarly concerned with three-dimensional (3D) printing methods (abstract). Buller teaches that “3D printing methodologies can comprise powder feed, or wire deposition” (paragraph [0164]). Buller teaches that “at times, at least a portion of a layer within the printed three-dimensional (abbreviated herein as “3D”) object may bend, warp, roll, curl, or otherwise deform during the 3D printing process” (paragraph [0006]). Buller teaches that “at times it is desired to control the deformation of at least a layer within the 3D object” (paragraph [0006]). Buller teaches that “the present disclosure delineates detection, control, or both detection and control, of at least the (e.g., afore-mentioned) deformations disclosed herein using at least one of the (e.g., afore-mentioned) control methodologies disclosed herein, and that the present disclosure delineates reduction (e.g., attenuation and/or prevention) of at least the (e.g., afore-mentioned) degree and/or direction of deformations disclosed herein, using various detection and/or control methodologies” (paragraph [0006]). Buller teaches that “measuring the deformation and controlling the deformation may occur during formation of one or more melt pools as part of the transforming” (paragraph [0018]). Buller teaches that “the physical attribute can relate to a temperature comprising a temperature of the melt pool, or a temperature of an area adjacent to the melt pool, and that the method may further comprise measuring an intensity and/or wavelength of a radiation” (which reads upon “monitoring the melt pool throughout the deposition to provide a real-time measurement of at least one of melt pool intensity, size, lateral location, and height location relative to the metallic workpiece”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). Buller teaches that “the transformed material portion may comprise at least one melt pool, and wherein the physical-attribute may comprise melt pool temperature, fundamental length scale (FLS), or reflectivity, and that the fundamental length scale (FLS) may comprise height, depth, or diameter (e.g., or diameter equivalence)” (which reads upon “monitoring the melt pool throughout the deposition to provide a real-time measurement of at least one of melt pool intensity, size, lateral location, and height location relative to the metallic workpiece”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). Buller teaches that “the hardening can be actively induced (e.g., by cooling)” (paragraph [0167]). Buller teaches that “the control may comprise controlling a cooling rate” (which reads upon “controlling the applying, directing and cooling”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0188]). Buller teaches that “the control may comprise feedback control” (paragraph [0198]). Buller teaches that “the closed loop control may rely on real time measurements (e.g., during formation of a layer of the 3D object)” (which reads upon “based on the real-time measurement using closed loop feedback”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0198]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sidhu to add real time closed loop control of the cooling rate based on parameters of the melt pool, as taught by Buller to control the deformation of at least a layer within the 3D object.
Sidhu does not explicitly teach that the completed workpiece comprises a metal structure of a liquid rocket engine. Rather, Sidhu is silent as to the practical applications of the completed workpiece obtained by the taught method.
Underwood teaches that 3-D printing manufacturing methods have been used to produce rocket engines (page 1). Moreover, Underwood teaches that one such part produced by 3-D printing is a gas generator injector (page 2). Underwood teaches that goal is to build low-cost liquid-fuel rocket engines and produce them quickly in a way "that completely breaks the cost paradigm" (which reads on “a metal structure of a liquid rocket engine” as recited in the instant claim; page 2). Underwood teaches that the 3-D printing methods allow for the construction of a lighter part which costs significantly less to make, and can be completed in a fraction of the time it would take to produce the part by traditional manufacturing methods (page 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additive manufacturing method taught by Sidhu to produce a metal structure of a liquid rocket engine, such as a gas generator injector. Additive manufacturing techniques to produce these parts have been used, and allow for the construction of lighter parts which cost significantly less to make, and can be completed in a fraction of the time it would take to produce the parts by traditional manufacturing methods.
Regarding claim 47, as best understood in light of the 112 rejections above, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 45 as stated above. Buller teaches that “the controller may direct formation of a certain type of metallurgical microstructure to be (e.g., predominantly) formed during the 3D printing” (paragraph [0303]).
Regarding claim 48, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 45 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “the cooled bead is then treated by the hydraulic impact treatment tools 7 to reduce residual stress and modify the microstructure of the work piece” (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claims 49-50, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 48 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “one or more of the treatment tools is driven by a different energy conversion system instead of or in addition to being hydraulically driven, e.g. a treatment tool may be electromagnetically, ultrasonically, or pneumatically driven” (paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 52, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 45 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “the step of cooling may be performed by a forced cooling device” (paragraph [0023]). Sidhu teaches that “the bead is cooled to a crystallised state using the forced cooling gas nozzle 6, and that this may use air or a cryogenic spray jet, for example” (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 53, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 45 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “the cooled bead is then treated by the hydraulic impact treatment tools 7 to reduce residual stress and modify the microstructure of the work piece” (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 54, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 53 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “finer grain structure resulting from the impact treatment is apparent” (paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 63, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 45 as stated above. Sidhu teaches “a) applying, by a heat source, heat to a portion of a surface of a workpiece sufficient to melt said portion; b) adding material to the melted portion and moving the heat source relative to the workpiece whereby progressively to form a layer of material on the workpiece; c) cooling the formed layer to bring at least part of the layer to a state of crystallisation, thereby producing a modified workpiece; and d) using a plurality of independently controllable impact treatment devices to peen the modified workpiece so as to plastically deform the cooled at least part layer. Steps a) to d) are repeated as required whereby to form the object” (paragraph [0011]). Buller teaches that “the control may be continuous control (e.g., during the 3D printing process, during formation of the 3D object, and/or during formation of a layer of hardened material)” (paragraph [0244]; continuous control requires continuous monitoring).
Regarding claims 64-65, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 45 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “if the AM structure of the workpiece 1 being built up is to be tailored in its properties, the application of impact treatment to the workpiece 1 during build may be varied” (paragraph [0063]). Sidhu teaches that “for example, only parts of the layers may be treated or treatment may be applied to selected layers only, depending on the stiffness or strength required, for different parts of the work piece” (paragraph [0063]). Sidhu teaches that “such variations in the treatment throughout the workpiece structure may be carried out in conjunction with variations in the deposited material, throughout the structure of the workpiece” (paragraph [0063]). Sidhu teaches different stiffness or strength requirements at different parts of the work piece. Sidhu is silent as to if greater stiffness or strength resides along the layer-wise direction than in the interlayer direction. As these properties may be tailored throughout the workpiece, greater compliance may be tailored either along the layer-wise direction or in the interlayer direction. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between tailoring greater compliance along the layer-wise direction or in the interlayer direction with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu et al. (US 2017/0326681 A1), Buller et al. (US 20170239752 A1) and Underwood, “Dynetics rocket breakthroughs rely on 3-D printing, new methods”, 2015. Made in Alabama, Alabama Department of Commerce, 2015, 4 pages, from IDS, as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Coates et al. (US 20170129180 A1).
Regarding claim 51, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 50 as stated above.
Sidhu is silent regarding wherein the step of applying the high frequency peening to the deposited layer comprises applying a sacrificial layer to a surface of the deposited layer.
Coates is similarly concerned with a method of processing materials related to additive manufacturing (paragraph [0001]). Coates teaches “to apply pressure to a localised area on a layer or part of a layer of a work piece to reduce stress in the layer” (paragraph [0162]). Coates teaches that “in some embodiments the peening may be achieved by indexing the processing head to follow a line of deposition” (paragraph [0164]). Coates teaches that “the first and second processing heads are different and in which the first processing head is arranged to deposit a sacrificial material” (which reads upon “applying a sacrificial layer to a surface of the deposited layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0123]). Coates teaches that “the fluid may be a cooling fluid” (paragraph [0121]). Coates teaches that “such a fluid may be thought of as being a sacrificial fluid as it will latterly be removed from the article being inspected” (paragraph [0122]). Coates teaches that “a liquid may be used as a media for confinement of energy pulses as used in laser shock peening of the work piece” (paragraph [0293]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sidhu to add a sacrificial liquid layer as a media in laser shock peening, as taught by Coates for confinement of laser energy pulses.
Claims 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu et al. (US 2017/0326681 A1), Buller et al. (US 20170239752 A1) and Underwood, “Dynetics rocket breakthroughs rely on 3-D printing, new methods”, 2015. Made in Alabama, Alabama Department of Commerce, 2015, 4 pages, from IDS, as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Jones et al. Factors affecting the grain-refinement of aluminum using titanium and boron additives, Metallurgical Transactions B, Volume 7b, June 1976, pp. 223-234.
Regarding claims 55-56, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 53 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “the terminology “Additive Manufacturing” is used herein to refer to all additive processes that may be used to produce functional, complex objects, layer by layer, without moulds or dies e.g. by providing material (e.g. metal or plastic) typically in the form of a powder or a wire, and, using a powerful heat source such as a laser beam, electron beam or an electric, or plasma welding arc, melting an amount of that material and depositing the melted material (e.g. on a base plate/work piece), and subsequently building layers of material upon each preceding layer” (paragraph [0032]). Sidhu teaches that “variations in the treatment throughout the workpiece structure may be carried out in conjunction with variations in the deposited material, throughout the structure of the workpiece” (paragraph [0063]; Sidhu teaches to vary the composition of the deposited material throughout the structure). Buller teaches that “the material can comprise powder (e.g., granular material) or wires” (paragraph [0301]). Buller teaches that “the material composition of at least one layer within the material bed may differ from the material composition within at least one other layer in the material bed, and that the difference (e.g., variation) may comprise difference in crystal or grain structure” (paragraph [0303]; Buller teaches that grain structure may be altered by altering composition).
Sidhu is silent regarding wherein the step of altering a microstructure of the deposited layer comprises inserting a secondary wire into the melt pool and wherein the secondary wire comprises a grain refinement alloy, wherein the grain refinement alloy is selected from at least one of: aluminum titanium boron alloy, aluminum titanium carbon alloy, and aluminum niobium boron alloy. Sidhu teaches that “grain refinement and grain size reduction may be achieved using the above described methods and apparatus” (paragraph [0067]).
Jones is similarly concerned with grain refinement (title). Jones teaches that “the development of grain-refining techniques for the casting of aluminum, and the results achieved using additions of ternary Al-Ti-B master-alloys, are briefly described” (page 223). Jones teaches that “it is well known that addition to a molten metal of an agent which will promote grain-refinement on casting without introducing other noticeable alloying effects will result in improved mechanical properties and surface finish” (page 233). Jones teaches that “of all the solute elements added to commercial or pure aluminum singly, the most effective in grain-refinement action on casting is titanium” (page 227). Jones teaches that “the increasing--and increasingly efficient --use of additions of Al-Ti-B master-alloys has been justified from a technological and scientific point of view” (page 234). Jones teaches that “to confirm that, of the conceivable precipitates or suspensions occurring in molten aluminum alloys, TiB2 is apparently the most stable, i.e. it can operate as a nucleant at the lowest addition rate of any;” (page 234).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sidhu to improve grain refinement by adding a Al-Ti-B master-alloy, as taught by Jones to improve grain refinement and result in improved mechanical properties and surface finish.
With regard to claim 55, addition of a second wire to alter the composition of the melt pool would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Claims 57-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu et al. (US 2017/0326681 A1), Buller et al. (US 20170239752 A1) and Underwood, “Dynetics rocket breakthroughs rely on 3-D printing, new methods”, 2015. Made in Alabama, Alabama Department of Commerce, 2015, 4 pages, from IDS, as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Cohen et al. (US 10254499 B1).
Regarding claims 57-60, Sidhu teaches the method of claim 45 as stated above. Sidhu teaches that “currently known AM manufacturing techniques include: Laser Blown Powder, Laser Powder Bed, and Wire and Arc technologies” (paragraph [0003]). Sidhu teaches that “Laser Blown Powder technology will be focused upon” (paragraph [0003]). Sidhu is silent regarding details of wire based additive manufacturing, including wire feeding. Sidhu is silent regarding compressing the melt pool, wherein the melt pool is compressed by a trowel device attached to a print head, wherein the feed wire is directed through the print head, containing the melt pool in a roller device, wherein the roller device is attached to a print head, wherein the feed wire is directed through the print head.
Regarding the subject limitations, in order to carry out the invention of Sidhu, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary details of wire based additive manufacturing, including wire feeding. Cohen provides this teaching.
Cohen is similarly concerned with 3-D printing/additive manufacturing (column 1, lines 30-33). Cohen teaches that “the present disclosure provides a process, system, and apparatus for fabricating a 3-D structure, device, component, system, product, or assembly using a layer-by-layer, additive manufacturing process wherein in some embodiment variations filament is dispensed or fed from a deposition head by two or more rollers which contact the filament” (which reads upon “wherein the roller device is attached to a print head, wherein the feed wire is directed through the print head”, as recited in the instant claim; column 9, lines 20-27). Cohen teaches that “the filament is a metal” (which reads upon “feed wire”, as recited in the instant claim; column 3, line 27). Cohen teaches that “wire deposited in solid form is allowed to soften or become molten when the fabricated device is in use” (which reads upon “melt pool”, as recited in the instant claim; column 42, line 66 – column 43, line 1). Cohen teaches that “the present disclosure provides a process, system, and apparatus for fabricating a 3-D structure, device, component, system, product, or assembly using a layer-by-layer, additive manufacturing process wherein in some embodiment variations metallic wires are joined by welding, soldering, brazing, ultrasonic or thermosonic bonding, crimping, winding, pressure contact, or mutual entanglement” (which reads upon “compressing the melt pool”, as recited in the instant claim; column 7, lines 40-46). Cohen teaches that “it is also possible to integrate other elements in the printhead which are beneficial to the process” (column 137, line 66 – column 138, line 1). Cohen teaches that “for example, trowels and other protruding shapes attached to the printhead (e.g., the nozzle) can be used to control the width and shape of extrudates with considerable accuracy and precision, making possible objects with improved tolerances and/or smaller features” (which reads upon “wherein the feed wire is directed through the print head”, as recited in the instant claim; column 138, lines 1-6). Cohen teaches that “with a nozzle or printhead attachment having a groove to accept a portion of the wire's width, such “edge bending” as it is known to the art, can be achieved” (which reads upon “wherein the feed wire is directed through the print head”, as recited in the instant claim; column 138, lines 12-18). Cohen teaches “two pairs of conductive feed rollers that advance the wire while heating it resistively” (which reads upon “containing the melt pool in a roller device”, as recited in the instant claim; column 26, lines 7-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of the prior art using the details of wire based additive manufacturing, including wire feeding, as taught by Cohen, motivated to perform a conventional additive manufacturing method using known and tested details of wire feeding predictably suitable for wire based additive manufacturing applications.
Regarding claims 61-62, as best understood in light of the 112 rejections above, modified Sidhu teaches the method of claim 57 as stated above. Sidhu teaches “applying, by a heat source, heat to a portion of a surface of a workpiece sufficient to melt said portion” (paragraph [0011]). Sidhu teaches “cooling the formed layer to bring at least part of the layer to a state of crystallisation” (paragraph [0011]). Cohen teaches that “the present disclosure provides a process, system, and apparatus for fabricating a 3-D structure, device, component, system, product, or assembly using a layer-by-layer, additive manufacturing process wherein in some embodiment variations metallic wires are joined by welding, soldering, brazing, ultrasonic or thermosonic bonding, crimping, winding, pressure contact, or mutual entanglement” (which reads upon “compressing the melt pool”, as recited in the instant claim; column 7, lines 40-46).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733