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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10 November 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-3, 8, 9, 18, 20, 22, 24 & 26 have been amended, claims 4, 19, 23 & 25 have been cancelled, and claims 31 & 32 have been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-18, 20-22, 24 & 26-32 are presently pending in this application.
Claims 2, 11-17, 21, 24 & 27-30 are currently withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected species.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 22 incorporates the subject matter of claim 23, previously withdrawn but now cancelled, including the limitation wherein the arcuate compliant portions “comprise a [fillet] radius of about 0.5 mm”. As noted in the previous Office action (for claim 23), this limitation is recited in para. 170 describing “fillet radius 1340” of FIG. 36 [species 4]), and is not understood to be a feature of elected species 2C (figs. 18-29).
In view of the above, claim 22 is now withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10, 18 & 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 3: “a third convolution” should read “a third convolution portion”;
Claim 9, line 2: “in in a direction” should read “in a direction”.
Claim 10: “the at least one convolution portion” should read “the first convolution portion”;
Claim 18, lines 5-6: “the second connection portion” should read “the second connecting portion”.
Claim 20, lines 2-3: “a longitudinal axis” appears it should read “the longitudinal axis of the bellows” (established in claim 18).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites “wherein the second compliant portion is spaced apart from the first end and the second end…”. It is unclear if “the second compliant portion” is referring to the second compliant portion of the first convolution portion (as in claim 1) or one of the second compliant portions for the second, third, or fourth convolution portions (as in claim 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.
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.
Claims 1 & 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godfrey et al. (US 2019/0113163 A1; hereafter Godfrey) in view of Clement et al. (US 3,908,704; hereafter Clement) and Wood et al. (US 2014/0367367 A1; hereafter Wood).
Examination Note: claim 1 recites that the first and second connecting portion are “configured to connect” to respective first and second components, while claim 5 requires that the first and second connecting portions are integral with the first and second components such that they all are a single piece structure. As a result, claim 1 appears to be generic both to embodiments where the first and second connecting portions are, i.e., separate but attachable to the first and second components and embodiments (as in claim 5) where they are integral with the first and second components.
To promote compact prosecution, the rejection of claim 1 below includes two alternative interpretations of Godfrey: in the first interpretation, the first and second connecting portions are, i.e., flanges 116 provided at the ends of the bellows assembly 100-3 for connecting to other system components. In the second interpretation, the first and second connecting portions are, i.e., joint portions of the bellows portion 188 for connecting to adjacent tubular components 184 & 186, whereby the two tubular components and the bellows portion are integrally formed as a single piece structure (i.e., bellows assembly 100-3).
Regarding claim 1, Godfrey discloses (e.g., figs. 3A-B) a bellows assembly (100-3) comprising:
a first connecting portion configured to connect to a first component (i.e., flange 116 at the lower end in figs. 3A-B or, alternatively, portion indicated at “1st Connecting Portion” in annotated partial fig. 3B below; see Examination Note above);
a second connecting portion configured to connect to a second component and distal from the first connecting portion (i.e., flange 116 at upper end in figs. 3A-B or, alternatively, portion indicated at “2nd Connecting Portion”, below);
a first convolution portion (i.e., one of the four convolution portions 187 shown) between the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion and configured to provide compliance such that the first connecting portion moves relative to the second connecting portion (see para. 3, lines 1-6; para. 13, lines 4-13; a person of skill in the art would have readily understood that the convolution portions of the bellows are configured to provide the compliance recited in the cited sections), the first convolution portion comprising:
a first end (“1st End”, below) located toward the first connecting portion,
a second end (“2nd End”, below) spaced away from the first end, toward the second connecting portion,
a longitudinal axis extending from the first end to the second end (i.e., a vertical axis as oriented in fig. 3B) and a lateral axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e., a horizontal axis as oriented in fig. 3B),
a first compliant portion (“1st Compliant Portion”) extending outwardly away from the longitudinal axis from the first end at a first angle relative to the lateral axis (as shown),
a second compliant portion (“2nd Compliant Portion”),
a third compliant portion (“3rd Compliant Portion”) extending outwardly away from the longitudinal axis from the second end at a second angle relative to the lateral axis (as shown),
the second compliant portion formed between and coupling to distal ends of the first and third compliant portions (as shown),
wherein the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion form cone shapes (see figs. 3A-B).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation wherein the first angle and the second angle are between about 30 degrees to 80 degrees (i.e., such that the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion form cone shapes), the first and second angles at which the first and third compliant portions extend, as depicted in figs. 3A-B, is reasonably seen as falling with the range of between about 30 degrees to 80 degrees (i.e., the angles each appear to about 45°) and, as in the claim, the angles are such that the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion form cone shapes.
While the written description of Godfrey does not specify particular angles, it does recite that “Any or multiple curvature angles of convolutes may be present” (para. 18).
However, to promote compact prosecution, an additional teaching in view of Clement is provided below.
Clement teaches (fig. 1) a bellows assembly comprising a series of convolution portions (20; “corrugations”), each convolution comprising a first compliant portion (24) extending outwardly away from a first end (i.e., at one inside bend 22) at a first angle relative to a lateral axis, a second compliant portion (21), a third compliant portion (23) extending outwardly away from a second end (i.e., at an adjacent inside bend 22) at a second angle relative to the lateral axis, the second compliant portion formed between and coupling to distal ends of the first and third compliant portions, wherein the first compliant portion and third compliant portion form cone shapes.
Regarding the limitation wherein the first angle and the second angle are between about 30 degrees to 80 degrees (i.e., such that the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion form cone shapes), Clement further teaches that the first and third compliant portions may be formed to have an angle “between about 30° and 60°”(via forming with a tool having a corresponding angle; see col. 7, lines 1-11 & figs. 5-7).
Clement explains that such an arrangement using acute angles permits the convolutions to fold under an adjoining convolution to make “very close bends” (see abstract).
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bellows assembly of Godfrey such that the first angle and the second angle are between about 30 degrees to 80 degrees (e.g., between about 30 degrees and 60 degrees), in view of the teachings of Clement, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming first and third compliant portions to have angles between about 30 and 60 degrees such that they form cone shapes, as in Clement) to improve a similar device (i.e., the bellows assembly of Godfrey, having similarly formed convolutions) in the same way (e.g., using acute angles in the stated range so as to enable the resulting bellows assembly to make “very close bends”, as otherwise suggested by Clement).
Godfrey further discloses that the entire bellows assembly, including the at least one convolution portion, may be additively manufactured as a single part, e.g., by direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) or electron beam melting (EBM)(see, e.g., para. 25).
Godfrey does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the bellows assembly comprises a first starter portion and a second starter portion, wherein the first and second starter portions extend circumferentially around a portion of the second compliant portion and extend away from the second compliant portion, wherein the second starter portion is circumferentially spaced apart from the first starter portion.
Wood teaches that, when manufacturing components via powder-bed type additive manufacturing methods such as electron beam melting, support structures are needed for overhanging or downwardly facing surfaces, to avoid issues such as distortion and poor surface finish (see paras. 5, 9 & 10).
Wood proposes a method of providing an array of spaced support structures (e.g., in the form of longitudinally extending pins 22) along the bottom surface of overhanging and/or downwardly facing surfaces, which are configured to provide a starting point for additively manufacturing the overhanging or downwardly facing surfaces (see figs 6-14).
In particular, Wood teaches an additive manufacturing process including laying down and partially melting a first layer (figs. 9 & 10) and subsequent layers to begin to form a component having vertical surfaces (23); wherein, in layers in a preceding one in which an overhanging or downward facing surface is to be formed, an array of spaced supports are formed and built up in regions corresponding to the future overhanging / downward facing surface (see figs. 11-13) to provide support for the surface when it is eventually formed (fig. 14).
Wood explains that these downwardly extending supports can be formed starting from free ends within a powder bed, whereby they may be supported only by underlying powder, rather than needing to be supported from a lower rigid surface such as a metal base place or another part of the component being formed (paras 52 & 62). In other words, the spaced supports may be “starter portions”.
As would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art, orientation of an additively manufactured component may be based on a number of factors including available build volume, support efficiency (e.g., orienting to minimizing overhanging surfaces), inter-layer anisotropic effects of the resulting component, etc.
When considering a bellows assembly such as bellows assembly (100-3) of Godfrey, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the assembly vertically (i.e., as in figures of Godfrey or inverted) as a matter of routine engineering design, e.g., to minimize the area of overhanging surfaces and/or to minimize the amount of support material required (as tubular / annular layers in a vertical orientation can be directly supported by the underlying layers for much of the length, particularly where the diameter does not change [e.g., along the tubular components], and with little or no support required on the interior, whereas a horizontal orientation would likely require substantially more support along much of the length and possibly within the interior as the tubular portions are formed in a layer-by-layer fashion [i.e., consider, for a plain tube, a vertical build orientation would have no overhanging surfaces, whereas a horizontal build orientation would consist almost entirely of overhanging surfaces].
When configured to be additively manufactured in a vertical build orientation as above and, in particular, when configured to be additively manufactured in an inverted orientation relative to the figures of Godfrey (i.e. one of the two possible vertical orientations), the second compliant portion would comprise a circumferentially extending overhanging surface.
As such, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bellows assembly of Godfrey to further comprise a series of spaced starter portions (supports), including at least a first starter portion and a second starter portion, wherein the first starter portion and second starter portion extend circumferentially around a portion of the second compliant portion (i.e., the first and second starter portions being arranged along the circumferentially extending overhanging surface formed by the second compliant portion and, each having a width, would be seen as extending over at least a portion of the circumference of the second compliant portion and would extend downwardly away from the second compliant portion), wherein the second starter portion is circumferentially spaced apart from the first starter portion (i.e., as in Wood, the starter portions would be spaced from one another along the surface; when applied to the circumferentially extending surface of the second compliant portion, at least some of the starter portions would reasonably be circumferentially spaced from one another), in view of the teachings of Wood, as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a series of spaced starter portions [i.e., supports starting from free ends in the powder bed] extending away from an overhanging surface along a longitudinal [vertical] axis, configured to provide a supported starting point for additively manufacturing the component comprising the surface, as in Wood) to improve a similar method/device (i.e., the additive manufacture of the bellows assembly of Godfrey wherein, even when oriented to be built vertically to minimize required support as discussed above, the second compliant portion would still be an overhanging surface which may reasonably require support) in the same way (e.g., providing support for the circumferentially extending overhanging second compliant portions to avoid distortion and poor surface finish as may occur if no support was used, and to provide such support in a manner which may be formed starting from free ends within a powder bed, whereby they may be supported only by underlying powder, rather than needing to be supported from a lower rigid surface such as a metal base place or another part of the component being formed, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, the bellows assembly of Godfrey, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the first connecting portion (i.e., “1st Connecting Portion” between bellows 188 and tubular component 186) is integral with the first component (i.e., tubular component 186) and the second connecting portion (i.e., “2nd Connecting Portion” between bellows 188 and tubular component 184) is integral with the second component (i.e., tubular component 186), such that the first component, the first connecting portion, the second connecting portion, and the second component are a single piece structure.
See para. 5: “The flexible, thermal-isolating tube, including each of the first and second fluid flow channel portions, and the bellows, is configured as a unitary structure”; para. 13: “As used herein, the term “unitary” means a one-piece configuration such that the unitary structure excludes brazing, fasteners, or the like for maintaining parts in a fixed relationship as a single unit”. See also published claim 1, 14, 15, etc.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that the capability of forming an assembly of multiple components together as a single piece structure is a well-known advantage of additive manufacturing. To illustrate by way of example, US 2015/0047935 A1 to Godfrey et al. (which shares an inventor and applicant/assignee with the Godfrey reference already cited) discloses a device comprising a bellows component, a piston component, a shaft component, and a housing component, wherein the device may be formed (as by DMLS) as a single part (e.g., to reduce part count, optimize the configuration, etc.; see paras. 21 & 22, published claims 8 & 18). See also US 2005/0120702 A1 to Fink, which discloses a flexible bellows component connected to a gimballing jet nozzle, wherein Fink discloses that the nozzle and bellows can be integrally formed as a single monolithic component (see para. 42).
Regarding claim 6, the bellows assembly of Godfrey, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the single piece structure is metal (see para. 25: may be made from nickel-based alloys, low-density titanium and aluminum alloys via direct metal laser fusion, or from titanium, titanium aluminide, or nickel-based superalloy materials via electron beam melting; see also para. 31: the build material may be “any suitable powder, including powdered metals, such as a stainless steel power, alloys and super alloy materials, such as nickel-based or cobalt super-alloys”, titanium, aluminum, titanium-aluminide, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, the bellows assembly of Godfrey, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion move relative to one another in at least one of an axial movement perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, compression or extension along the longitudinal axis, and a gimballing tilting angle relative to the longitudinal axis.
As best understood, the bellows structure of Godfrey would enable the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion move relative to one another in at least one of an axial movement perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, compression or extension along the longitudinal axis (i.e., via compression / extension of the convolutions along the longitudinal axis), and a gimballing tilting angle relative to the longitudinal axis (i.e., via bending of the convolutions). See also MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 8, the bellows assembly of Godfrey, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the assembly further comprises a second convolution portion extending away from the first convolution portion, a third convolution portion extending away from the second convolution portion, and a fourth convolution portion extending between the third convolution portion and the second connecting portion, wherein each of the second, third, and fourth convolution portions comprise first compliant portions, second compliant portions, and third compliant portions.
In particular, as can be seen from figs. 3A-B of Godfrey, the bellows assembly comprises four convolution portions (the one annotated for claim 1 above being the second of the four total convolution portions arranged between the first and second connecting portions), each with respective first, second, and third compliant portions.
Furthermore, the written description explains “Any number of convolutes may be present” (para. 18). Other figures of Godfrey depict 5 convolutions (figs. 5A-B) and 7 convolutions (fig. 2), albeit of different form.
Regarding claim 9, the bellows assembly of Godfrey, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the second compliant portion is spaced apart from the first end and the second end in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis.
In the embodiment shown in figs. 3A & B of Godfrey, the second compliant portion is located at least some distance closer to the 2nd connecting portion along the longitudinal axis relative to each of the first end and the second end, whereby the resulting structure reads on the limitation wherein the second compliant portion is spaced apart from the first end and the second end in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis, as claimed
Regarding claim 10, with respect to the limitation wherein the at least one (i.e., first) convolution portion has a wall thickness of about 0.5 millimeters, Godfrey discloses that “Any or multiple wall thicknesses may be present” (para. 18).
While Godfrey does not explicitly disclose the wall thickness to be “about 0.5 millimeters”, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been generally held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A), it has been held that where the difference between the prior art and the claims involves only a change of form, proportions, or degree, such a difference is unpatentable even though changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions [Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)].
In the instant case, the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention would appear to be the recitation of the particular wall thickness, which is reasonably seen as a recitation of a relative dimension and/or a difference in form or proportions relative to the prior art, whereby such differences are unpatentable in view of the above guidance.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bellows assembly of Godfrey such that the wall thickness of the at least one convolution is any reasonable thickness, including a wall thickness of 0.5mm, as may be required for a particular application, as a matter of routine engineering design (e.g., based upon the pressures and/or mechanical stresses expected for the application) especially considering that Godfrey explicitly discloses that the convolutions may have any wall thickness, and applicant’s specification does not otherwise set forth any evidence that the cited value is critical to achieving an unexpected result.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Clement & Wood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freiherr von Arnim et al. (US 4,340,089; hereafter FvA).
Regarding claim 3, with respect to the limitation wherein the first angle is different from the second angle such that the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion converge toward the first end and the second end, Godfrey discloses that “The bellows portion 188 may have convolutes in a variety of shapes, such as rounded, squared, cotter-pin shaped, and square/rectangular, among others”, “Any or multiple curvature angles of convolutes may be present…”(para. 18).
As best understood, at least a “cotter-pin shaped” convolute would comprise portions which converge, in some aspect. However, Godfrey does not explicitly disclose that the first angle is different from the second angle such that the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion converge toward the first end and the second end.
FvA teaches (sole fig.) a bellows assembly comprising a plurality of convolution portions, each convolution portion comprising a first end (as at 7), a second end (as at 8), a first compliant portion (as at 5) extending outwardly from the first end, a second compliant portion (as at 4), a third compliant portion (as at 6) extending outwardly away from the second end, the second compliant portion formed between and coupling to distal ends of the first and third compliant portions, wherein the first compliant portion and third compliant portion extend outwardly at respective first and second angles, wherein the first angle is different from the second angle such that the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion converge toward the first end and the second end (i.e., so as to form a relatively narrower “ring-space or gap 9”).
FvA further teaches that, in prior art devices, fluid flow into the corrugations may form eddies or vortices which may lead to undesirable vibrations or oscillations (col. 1) but that, by forming the ring-spaces / gaps to be narrower, such undesired flow conditions may be eliminated, at least in some operational conditions (cols. 1 & 2, generally).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bellows assembly of Godfrey to have the first angle different from the second angle such that the first compliant portion and the third compliant portion converge toward the first end and the second end, in view of the teachings of FvA, to narrow the openings / gaps into the convolution portion (thereby providing a relatively “smoother” inner flow path), while maintaining a relatively larger bend radius at the second compliant portion (which may reduce stress concentration during bending relative to a smaller bend radius, etc.).
Claims 18 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Wood.
Regarding claim 18, Godfrey discloses (e.g., figs. 3A-B) a bellows (100-3) comprising:
a first connecting portion at a first end of the bellows (e.g., flange 116 at the lower end, as oriented in figs. 3A-B; see para. 17);
a second connecting portion at a second end of the bellows opposite the first end along a longitudinal axis of the bellows (e.g., flange 116 at the upper end);
a plurality of convolutions (187) located between the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion, the plurality of convolutions comprising:
conical compliant portions (see “Conical Portions” below); and
arcuate compliant portions (see “Arcuate Portions” below), wherein the arcuate compliant portions connect the conical compliant portions (as shown).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
955
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Godfrey further discloses that the entire bellows, including the convolutions, may be additively manufactured as a single part, e.g., by direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) or electron beam melting (EBM)(see, e.g., para. 25).
Godfrey does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the bellows further comprises a plurality of starter portions extending away from at least one arcuate compliant portion in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis, and wherein each starter portion extends circumferentially around the plurality of convolutions along a portion of the at least one arcuate compliant portion.
Wood teaches that, when manufacturing components via powder-bed type additive manufacturing methods such as electron beam melting, support structures are needed for overhanging or downwardly facing surfaces, to avoid issues such as distortion and poor surface finish (see paras. 5, 9 & 10).
Wood proposes a method of providing an array of spaced support structures (e.g., in the form of longitudinally extending pins 22) along the bottom surface of overhanging and/or downwardly facing surfaces, which are configured to provide a starting point for additively manufacturing the overhanging or downwardly facing surfaces (see figs 6-14).
In particular, Wood teaches an additive manufacturing process including laying down and partially melting a first layer (figs. 9 & 10) and subsequent layers to begin to form a component having vertical surfaces (23); wherein, in layers in a preceding one in which an overhanging or downward facing surface is to be formed, an array of spaced supports are formed and built up in regions corresponding to the future overhanging / downward facing surface (see figs. 11-13) to provide support for the surface when it is eventually formed (fig. 14).
Wood explains that these downwardly extending supports can be formed starting from free ends within a powder bed, whereby they may be supported only by underlying powder, rather than needing to be supported from a lower rigid surface such as a metal base place or another part of the component being formed (paras 52 & 62). In other words, the spaced supports may be “starter portions”.
As would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art, orientation of an additively manufactured component may be based on a number of factors including available build volume, support efficiency (e.g., orienting to minimizing overhanging surfaces), inter-layer anisotropic effects of the resulting component, etc.
When considering a bellows such as bellows (100-3) of Godfrey, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the assembly vertically (i.e., as in figures of Godfrey or inverted) as a matter of routine engineering design, e.g., to minimize the area of overhanging surfaces and/or to minimize the amount of support material required (as tubular / annular layers in a vertical orientation can be directly supported by the underlying layers for much of the length, particularly where the diameter does not change [e.g., along the tubular components], and with little or no support required on the interior, whereas a horizontal orientation would likely require substantially more support along much of the length and possibly within the interior as the tubular portions are formed in a layer-by-layer fashion [i.e., consider, for a plain tube, a vertical build orientation would have no overhanging surfaces, whereas a horizontal build orientation would consist almost entirely of overhanging surfaces].
When configured to be additively manufactured in a vertical build orientation as above and, in particular, when configured to be additively manufactured in an inverted orientation relative to the figures of Godfrey (i.e. one of the two possible vertical orientations), the arcuate compliant portions would comprise overhanging surfaces extending circumferentially around the plurality of convolutions.
As such, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bellows of Godfrey to further comprise a plurality of starter portions (supports) extending away from (i.e., downward from) at least one arcuate compliant portion (i.e., to support the overhanging surface formed by each arcuate compliant surface) in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis (i.e., downward, when oriented vertically), and wherein each starter portion extends circumferentially around the plurality of convolutions along a portion of the at least one arcuate compliant portion (i.e., each starter portion, being arranged along the overhanging surface formed by the second compliant portion extending circumferentially around the plurality of convolutions and, each having a width, would be seen as extending circumferentially around the plurality of convolutions along a portion of the at least one arcuate compliant portion), in view of the teachings of Wood, as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a plurality of spaced starter portions [i.e., supports starting from free ends in the powder bed] extending away from overhanging surfaces along a longitudinal [vertical] axis, configured to provide a supported starting point for additively manufacturing the component comprising the surfaces, as in Wood) to improve a similar method/device (i.e., the additive manufacture of the bellows of Godfrey wherein, even when oriented to be built vertically to minimize required support as discussed above, the arcuate compliant portions would still be overhanging surfaces which may reasonably require support) in the same way (e.g., providing support for the circumferentially extending overhanging arcuate compliant portions to avoid distortion and poor surface finish as may occur if no support was used, and to provide such support in a manner which may be formed starting from free ends within a powder bed, whereby they may be supported only by underlying powder, rather than needing to be supported from a lower rigid surface such as a metal base place or another part of the component being formed, etc.).
Regarding claim 26, the bellows of Godfrey reads on the additional limitation wherein the arcuate compliant portions comprises a smooth radius (as shown).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Wood as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Clement.
Regarding claim 20, the bellows of Godfrey reads on the additional limitation wherein the conical compliant portions (“Conical Portions” as annotated for claim 18 above) comprise first conical compliant portions extending outwardly from a longitudinal axis at a first angle relative to a lateral axis of the bellows (as shown in figs. 3A-B).
Regarding the remaining limitation wherein the first angle is between about 10 degrees to 90 degrees, the first angle at which the first conical compliant portions extend, as depicted in figs. 3A-B, is clearly seen as falling with the range of between about 10 degrees to 90 degrees (i.e., the angles each appear to about 45°).
While the written description of Godfrey does not specify particular angles, it does recite that “Any or multiple curvature angles of convolutes may be present” (para. 18).
However, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teaching is provided.
Clement teaches (fig. 1) a bellows comprising a series of convolutions (20; “corrugations”), each convolution comprising a first angled / conical compliant portion (24) extending outwardly away from a first end (i.e., at one inside bend 22) at a first angle relative to a lateral axis, a second arcuate compliant portion (21), a third conical compliant portion (23) extending outwardly away from a second end (i.e., at an adjacent inside bend 22) at a second angle relative to the lateral axis, the second arcuate compliant portion formed between and coupling to distal ends of the first and third conical compliant portions.
Clement further teaches that the first and third conical compliant portions may be formed to have an angle “between about 30° and 60°”(via forming with a tool having a corresponding angle; see col. 7, lines 1-11 & figs. 5-7).
Clement explains that such an arrangement using acute angles permits the convolutions to fold under an adjoining convolution to make “very close bends” (see abstract).
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bellows of Godfrey such that the first angle is between about 10 degrees to 90 degrees (e.g., between about 30 degrees and 60 degrees), in view of the teachings of Clement, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming conical compliant portions to have angles between about 30 and 60 degrees, as in Clement) to improve a similar device (i.e., the bellows of Godfrey, having similarly formed convolutions) in the same way (e.g., using acute angles in the stated range so as to enable the resulting bellows to make “very close bends”, as otherwise suggested by Clement).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Clement & Wood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kroll et al. (US 2014/0251481 A1; hereafter Kroll).
Regarding claim 31, Godfrey and Wood do not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein a height of the first starter portion varies as the first starter portion extends circumferentially along the second compliant portion to form a wedge shape.
Kroll teaches that, when manufacturing a part by additive manufacturing methods such as laser melting and laser sintering, particular measures must be taken to enable manufacturing of overhanging / projecting / cantilevered portions (paras. 6-8). Kroll explains that overhangs of less than 45° - 50° from vertical can reliably avoid such problems (i.e., they are “self-supporting”), while overhangs greater than require support structures (paras. 9-11).
Kroll further teaches (figs. 1A&B; 2A&B) a support arrangement for a tubular component (3) comprising a series of spaced-apart wedge-shaped support legs (9) which vary in height (and width) along both the circumference and length of the tubular component, so as to define outer surfaces (6) which each extend at an angle of not more than 45° in relation to the force of gravity (e.g., see para. 44-45). Kroll explains that the tubular component comprises a curved outer surface, whereby the supports are arranged in such a way that neither the supports nor the outer surface have an overhang of more than 45° (paras. 46-47).
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
While Kroll does not explicitly teach the lower ends of the wedge-type supports to be free ends supportable by the powder bed, Wood already teaches that supports can form starter portions with a free end supported by the powder bed and, as Kroll teaches that the wedge-type supports are formed to have outer surfaces with angles which do not exceed 45°, avoiding issues of unsupported overhangs, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the wedge-type support of Kroll could also serve as a starter portion with a free end supported by the powder bed.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bellows assembly of Godfrey, as otherwise modified above, such that a height of the first starter portion varies as the first starter portion extends circumferentially along the second compliant portion to form a wedge shape, in view of the teachings of Kroll, as the simple substitution of one known starter portion / support arrangement (i.e., the original pin-type supports of Wood) for another (i.e., the wedge-type supports of Kroll) to obtain predictable results (i.e., a support arrangement whereby the supports and the lower surface of the second compliant portion can each be formed in a manner so as to avoid any overhanging surface greater than, e.g., 45°, rather than merely reducing the overhang distances as would be the case with spaced-apart pins; with the predictable trade-off of requiring relatively more support material relative to the pin arrangement).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Wood as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kroll.
Regarding claim 32, Godfrey and Wood do not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein each starter portion of the plurality of starter portions comprises a first point, a starter point, and a first side extending between the first point and the starter point, wherein the starter point extends further away from the arcuate compliant portion than the first point such that the first side extends at a first slope angle relative to a lateral axis.
Kroll teaches that, when manufacturing a part by additive manufacturing methods such as laser melting and laser sintering, particular measures must be taken to enable manufacturing of overhanging / projecting / cantilevered portions (paras. 6-8). Kroll explains that overhangs of less than 45° - 50° from vertical can reliably avoid such problems (i.e., they are “self-supporting”), while overhangs greater than require support structures (paras. 9-11).
Kroll further teaches (figs. 1A&B; 2A&B) a support arrangement for a tubular component (3) comprising a series of spaced-apart wedge-shaped support legs (9), each comprising a first point (i.e., a point at which the support joins to the curved outer surface of the component), a starter point (i.e., a lowermost point of the support), and a first side (i.e., one of the outer surfaces 6) extending between the first point and the starter point (as shown), wherein the starter point extends further away from the curved outer surface of the component than the first point such that the first side extends at a first slope angle relative to a lateral axis (i.e., an angle of at least 45° relative to the lateral axis, so as to ensure that the complementary angle defined relative to the vertical axis / force of gravity does not exceed 45°)(e.g., see para. 44-45). Kroll explains that the supports are arranged in such a way that neither the supports nor the outer surface have an overhang of more than 45° (paras. 46-47).
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
While Kroll does not explicitly teach the lower ends of the wedge-type supports to be free ends supportable by the powder bed, Wood already teaches that supports can form starter portions with a free end supported by the powder bed and, as Kroll teaches that the wedge-type supports are formed to have outer surfaces with angles which do not exceed 45°, avoiding issues of unsupported overhangs, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the wedge-type support of Kroll could also serve as a starter portion with a free end supported by the powder bed.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bellows of Godfrey, as otherwise modified above, such that each starter portion of the plurality of starter portions comprises a first point (i.e., an upper attachment point to the arcuate compliant portion surface), a starter point (i.e., a lowermost point), and a first side extending between the first point and the starter point, wherein the starter point extends further away from the arcuate compliant portion than the first point such that the first side extends at a first slope angle relative to a lateral axis (i.e., an angle of at least 45° relative to the lateral axis, so as to ensure that the complementary angle defined relative to the vertical axis / force of gravity does not exceed 45°), in view of the teachings of Kroll, as the simple substitution of one known starter portion / support arrangement (i.e., the original pin-type supports of Wood) for another (i.e., the wedge-type supports of Kroll) to obtain predictable results (i.e., a support arrangement whereby the supports and the lower surface of the arcuate compliant portions can each be formed in a manner so as to avoid any overhanging surface greater than, e.g., 45°, rather than merely reducing the overhang distances as would be the case with spaced-apart pins; with the predictable trade-off of requiring relatively more support material relative to the pin arrangement).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered, however, applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 & 18 have overcome the grounds of rejection set forth in the previous action. New or otherwise amended grounds of rejection are applied to the claims in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
To promote compact prosecution where applicant’s arguments may remain pertinent to the new or amended grounds of rejection in this action, the following responses are provided.
Applicant argues that “Wood does not disclose starter portions that extend circumferentially along a portion of a surface, much less along a portion of an arcuate compliant surface”. This argument is not found to be persuasive. As set forth in the amended grounds of rejection in this action, when the bellows assembly of Godfrey is oriented vertically such that the arcuate compliant portions (i.e., the second compliant portions) form unsupported lower surfaces, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the such arcuate compliant portions may reasonably require support during manufacture, in view of the teachings of Wood. As the unsupported surfaces of the arcuate compliant portions are themselves circumferentially extending, the supports would reasonably be distributed in a spaced circumferential arrangement along the arcuate compliant portions. Further, as the supports (i.e., starter portions) taught by Wood do have some width dimension, however small, such supports arranged circumferentially around the arcuate compliant portions are reasonably seen to extend circumferentially around a portion of the arcuate compliant portion.
With respect to new claims 31 & 32, it is noted that Kroll teaches supports for an additively manufactured component which extend circumferentially and along a length of said component, said supports having a varying height along the circumference and length to form a wedge shape, and otherwise to form a first side which extends at a first slope angle, which is preferably 45° or greater (i.e., to avoid the support itself being an unsupported overhang, etc.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
To promote compact prosecution, attention is drawn to the tutorial by Stratasys, Inc., published 29 March 2018, entitled “Understanding Design & Process of DMLS 3D Metal Printing”. In particular, the tutorial explains (in Step 3: Angles): “STL editors will automatically generate support structures in your design, but you can manually refine the structures prior to build. Support material is the same metal as the final part, and requires labor to remove. Typically, with DMLS, features below 45 degrees require support structures, and 60 degree angles are ideal.”
The tutorial further provides a “solution”: “One solution to minimize supports: exchange the flat downward facing surfaces for an angled, saw-blade configuration. In the image below, the saw-blade design reduces supports by offering a surface with degree variances that aid in the sintering process. The new design cuts support removal time in half which reduces overall build time.”
PNG
media_image3.png
284
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that applicant’s “starter portions” appear to be an application of the above “angled saw-blade” configuration to a circumferential, yet still downward-facing surface.
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 Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753