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
The amendment presents claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 as amended, claims 11 and 12 as new, and claims 4, 5, and 7 as cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6, and 8- 12 remain pending examination (with claims 4, 5, and 7 withdrawn).
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103
With respect to claims 1-5, Applicant traverses the Walrand reference in that:
Regarding Walrand, Walrand does not have a conical inner heat shield member or a pyramidal outer heat shield member, as recited by amended independent claim 1. Further, Walrand does not disclose that the inner heat shield member is disposed (fixedly) within the outer heat shield member.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Walrand does have a conical inner heat shield member, as recited by amended independent claim 1. The conical inner heat shield member is being interpreted as equivalent to (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “chassis 25” [0069]), it can easily be interpreted that the “chassis 25” is inside the outer heat shield member by examining its location within Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2. Additionally, it is known that the “chassis 25” is conical in shape, Walrand states “In particular, said thermal screen may include a conductive chassis on which plates or sectors are attached” [0023], “The plates 21 to 24 are shaped to match the shape of the faces of the chassis and are attached to the chassis 25, being insulated from it by dielectric spacers 26” [0069], and “the thermal screen is not trapezoidal, but truncated cone-shaped, sectors 21 to 24 being sectors of corresponding shape” [0092]. From these quotes we can easily see that the heat shield unit (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “thermal screen T” [0023]) is comprised of an inner heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “chassis 25” [0069]) and an outer heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “plates 21, 22, 23, and 24” [0069]), and that the an inner heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “chassis 25” [0069]) will match the shape of the outer heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “plates 21, 22, 23, and 24” [0069]), and we are told that the outer heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “plates 21, 22, 23, and 24” [0069]) is a “truncated cone-shaped” [0092], thus we then know that the inner heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “chassis 25” [0069]) is of conical shape, therefore making it a conical inner heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “chassis 25” [0069]).
Furthermore, from this very same logic we know that Walrand does teach a pyramidal outer heat shield member “The chassis 25 is generally pyramidal in shape” [0067].
Additionally, Walrand does teach that “the inner heat shield member is disposed (fixedly) within the outer heat shield member.” Walrand states “The plates 21 to 24 are shaped to match the shape of the faces of the chassis and are attached to the chassis 25” [0069].
Walrand teaches a conical inner heat shield member or a pyramidal outer heat shield member, and that the inner heat shield member is disposed (fixedly) within the outer heat shield member.
However, the part of amended claim 1 that Walrand does not teach is “a conical heat shield member disposed inside the pyramidal heat shield member.” It is the combination of a conical inner heat shield member, a pyramidal outer heat shield member, and that the inner heat shield member is disposed (fixedly) within the outer heat shield member that Walrand does not teach. Moreover, Walrand does teach all of these limitations separately. While Walrand does teach a conical inner heat shield member and a pyramidal outer heat shield member, Walrand does not teach the conical inner heat shield member is disposed within the pyramidal outer heat shield member. Walrand simply teaches that the conical inner heat shield member occurs within a conical outer heat shield member, and similarly Walrand teaches a pyramidal inner heat shield member occurs within the pyramidal outer heat shield member.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, and 8-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the horizontal direction” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “a horizontal direction.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the inner surface” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “an inner surface.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the vertical direction” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “a vertical direction.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Beam irradiating device” in claim 1 and claim 6. This limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “irradiating” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “beam irradiating device” will be interpreted as “an electron gun,” “a focusing lens” or “a focusing coil,” “a deflection lens” or “a deflecting coil,” and equivalents, as indicated by: “The beam irradiating device 14 includes an electron gun that is a generation source of the electron beam 15, a focusing lens that focuses the electron beam generated by the electron gun, and a deflection lens that deflects the electron beam 15 focused by the focusing lens” (Pg. 5, Paragraph 0013, lines 10-14) and “The focusing lens is configured using, for example, a focusing coil and focuses the electron beam 15 with a magnetic field generated by the focusing coil. The deflection lens is configured using, for example, a deflection coil and deflects the electron beam 15 with a magnetic field generated by the deflection coil” (Pg. 5, paragraph 0013).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the heat shield member" in lines 13-14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 already establishes “a pyramidal heat shield member” and “a conical heat shield member.” Thus, there’s a lack of clarity in regard to “the heat shield member” because it is unclear as to whether the applicant intends to refer to the “pyramidal heat shield member” or “the conical heat shield member.” For the purposes of examination “the heat shield member” will be interpreted as the “conical heat shield member.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the side walls” in lines 16-17 of the claim. There is a lack of clarity as to what “side walls” are being referred to here. The “conical heat shield member” has a “side wall” and the “pyramidal heat shield member” has side walls. Thus, it is unclear whether applicant intends to refer all the side walls, meaning the side wall of the “conical heat shield member” and the side walls of the “pyramidal heat shield member,” or just the side walls of the “pyramidal heat shield member.” For the purposes of examination “the side walls” will be interpreted as the side walls belonging to both the “conical heat shield member” and the “pyramidal heat shield member.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the side walls” in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear what “side walls” are being referred to here, as “the side walls” are in reference to “the plurality of heat shield members” and the “side walls” is only in reference to the “pyramidal heat shield member” whereas the “side wall” is in reference to the “conical heat shield member.” Thus, it is unclear as to whether the applicant intends to refer to both the “side wall” of the “conical heat shield member” and the “side walls” of the “pyramidal heat shield member,” or only the “side walls” of the “pyramidal heat shield member.” For the purposes of examination “the side walls” will be interpreted as the side walls belonging to both the “conical heat shield member” and the “pyramidal heat shield member.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the side wall" in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear what “side wall” is being referred to here, as “the side wall” in in reference to the “trap portion,” and the trap portion is in reference to “at least one heat shield member of the plurality of heat shield members.” Furthermore, the “side wall” is only in reference to the “conical heat shield member” whereas the “side walls” are in reference to the “pyramidal heat shield member,” thus it is unclear if applicant only intends to refer to the “side wall” of the “conical heat shield member” or a side wall of the “side walls” of the “pyramidal heat shield member.” For the purposes of examination “the side wall” will be interpreted as the side wall belonging to the “conical heat shield member.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the side wall" in lines 3-4 of the claim. It is unclear what “side wall” is being referred to here, as “the side wall” in in reference to the “trap portion,” and the trap portion is in reference to “at least one heat shield member of the plurality of heat shield members.” Furthermore, the “side wall” is only in reference to the “conical heat shield member” whereas the “side walls” are in reference to the “pyramidal heat shield member,” thus it is unclear if applicant only intends to refer to the “side wall” of the “conical heat shield member” or a side wall of the “side walls” of the “pyramidal heat shield member.” For the purposes of examination “the side wall” will be interpreted as the side wall belonging to the “conical heat shield member.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walrand et al. (W.O. Document No. 2018078057), hereinafter Walrand in view of Gao et al. (C.N. Document No. 110899700), hereinafter Gao.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Walrand)
PNG
media_image2.png
398
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Walrand)
PNG
media_image3.png
409
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Walrand)
PNG
media_image4.png
860
836
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Gao)
PNG
media_image5.png
702
723
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 (Gao)
PNG
media_image6.png
534
506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9 (Gao)
Regarding claim 1, Walrand discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus comprising (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “selective additive manufacturing device 1” [0040]):
a build plate (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “horizontal platform 3”/ “support plate 3”/ “tray 3”/ “plateau 3” / “support 3” [0040]-[0041]) that holds a powder layer (“additive manufacturing powder” [0040]) made of a metal powder (“a support such as a horizontal platform 3 on which the different layers of additive manufacturing powder (metal powder, ceramic powder, etc.) are successively deposited” [0040]);
a beam irradiating device (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam gun 11,” “deflection coil 15,” and “focusing coil 16” [0047] and [0051]) that irradiates the build plate (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “horizontal platform 3”/ “support plate 3”/ “tray 3”/ “plateau 3” / “support 3” [0040]-[0041]) or the powder layer (“additive manufacturing powder” [0040]) with an electron beam (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam 20” [0055]) (“Deflection and focusing coils 15 and 16 allow the electron beam to be deflected and focused locally on the areas of layers to be sintered or fused” [0051]); and
a heat shield unit (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “thermal shield T”/ “thermal screen T” / “protective element T” [0058] [0065]) that is disposed between the build plate (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “horizontal platform 3”/ “support plate 3”/ “tray 3”/ “plateau 3” / “support 3” [0040]-[0041]) and the beam irradiating device (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam gun 11,” “deflection coil 15,” and “focusing coil 16” [0047] and [0051]) and shields radiant heat emitted from a part (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “object 2” [0040]) heated by irradiation with the electron beam (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam 20” [0055]) (“In one embodiment, said polarization protection element is a plate or sector of a thermal screen that extends at least partially around the area to which the powder layers are applied. In particular, said thermal screen may include a conductive chassis on which plates or sectors are attached, being on the one hand insulated from said chassis and on the other hand insulated from each other, said chassis being connected to ground or constituting a potential reference for the biasing assembly” [0023]),
wherein the heat shield unit (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “thermal shield T”/ “thermal screen T” / “protective element T” [0058] [0065]) is configured of a plurality of heat shield members (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “chassis 25” and “four flat plates 21 to 24” / “heat shield member” [0066])
wherein the plurality of heat shield members (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “chassis 25” and “heat shield member” [0066]) includes at least an outer conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “heat shield member” [0066]), having side walls (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 3, “four flat plates 21 to 24” [0066]), and a conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2, “chassis 25” [0066]) disposed inside the outer conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “heat shield member” [0066]) and having a side wall (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “four uprights 25a” [0067]) such that the heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2, “chassis 25” [0066]) is disposed in a space (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “space”) surrounded by the side walls (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 3, “four flat plates 21 to 24” [0066]) of the outer conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “heat shield member” [0066]),
wherein the side walls (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 1 and 2, “four flat plates 21 to 24” and “four uprights 25a” [0066]-[0067]) are arranged to surround a side of a beam passage region (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “side of the beam passage region”) through which the electron beam passes (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam 20” [0055]).
Walrand does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of heat shield members includes at least a pyramidal heat shield member, having side walls and an upper wall, and a conical heat shield member disposed inside the pyramidal heat shield member and such that the heat shield member is disposed in a space surrounded by the side walls and the upper wall of the pyramidal heat shield member.
However, Gao discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 1, “powder bed electron beam additive manufacturing apparatus” [0010]) wherein the plurality of heat shield members (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “fixed heat insulation frame 400” and “second insulation structure”/second insulation sheets 401” [0041]) includes at least a pyramidal heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “second insulation structure 401” / “second insulation sheets 401” [0077]), having side walls (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, four sides of the “second insulation structure 401” [0076]) and an upper wall (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, top side of the “second insulation structure 401” [0076]), and a heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]) disposed inside (“The fixed heat insulation frame 400 is generally composed of a frame body welded together with a front bracket, a rear bracket, a left bracket, a right bracket, and an upper bracket. To prevent heat loss from the fixed heat insulation frame 400, a second heat insulation structure is further provided on the four sides and the top surface of the fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]) the pyramidal heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “second insulation structure 401” / “second insulation sheets 401” [0077]) and having a side wall (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]; “fixed heat insulation frame 400 is generally composed of a frame body welded together with a front bracket, a rear bracket, a left bracket, a right bracket, and an upper bracket” [0076]) such that the heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]) is disposed in a space (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “space”) surrounded by the side walls (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, four sides of the “second insulation structure 401” [0076]) and the upper wall (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, top side of the “second insulation structure 401” [0076]) of the pyramidal heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “second insulation structure 401” / “second insulation sheets 401” [0077]) (“The fixed heat insulation frame 400 is generally composed of a frame body welded together with a front bracket, a rear bracket, a left bracket, a right bracket, and an upper bracket. To prevent heat loss from the fixed heat insulation frame 400, a second heat insulation structure is further provided on the four sides and the top surface of the fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]; “The second insulation structure includes a plurality of parallel-arranged second insulation sheets 401 and a second insulation material 402 filled between each of the second insulation sheets 401. The second insulation sheets 401 are stacked on the outer side or the top surface of the fixed insulation frame 400” [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the Walrand’s outer conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 3, “heat shield member” [0066]) for the pyramidal heat shield member taught in Gao (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]), because the substitution of one known heat shield member for another would have yielded predictable results of preventing the radiant heat from escaping outwards. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Examiner note: it is acknowledged, by the examiner, that the instant application states “the pyramidal heat shield member 41 is preferable in that the leakage of the radiant heat can be suppressed by the presence of the upper wall 41c” (Pg. 21, paragraph 0055). However, the advantageous/critical part of the pyramidal member is its presence of the upper wall that traps radiant heat, which Gao teaches, seen in paragraph number 14, regarding claim 9, below. The simple substitution of the solely the shape of conical heat shield member for a pyramidal heat shield member, would yield predictable results of preventing the radiant heat from escaping outwards.
Additionally, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walrand to incorporate the teachings of Gao to have the outer heat shield member with an upper wall. Doing so allows for prevention of heat loss from the inner heat shield member, which is beneficial because rapid heat loss causes reduced printing efficiency, as recognized by Gao (“To prevent heat loss from the fixed heat insulation frame 400, a second heat insulation structure is further provided on the four sides and the top surface of the fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]; “This invention provides a powder bed electron beam additive manufacturing equipment to solve problems such as powder blowing, poor interlayer bonding of formed parts, and reduced printing efficiency caused by rapid heat loss in high-temperature areas during the printing process in existing powder bed electron beam additive manufacturing equipment” [0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Walrand further discloses wherein the plurality of heat shield members (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “chassis 25” and “heat shield member” [0066]) are arranged to form a space (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “space”) between the side walls (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 3, “four flat plates 21 to 24” and “four uprights 25a” [0066]-[0067]) adjacent to each other on the side of the beam passage region (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “side of the beam passage region”).
Regarding claim 3, Walrand further discloses wherein each of the plurality of heat shield members (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “chassis 25” and “heat shield member” [0066]) has openings formed on both a beam irradiating device (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam gun 11,” “deflection coil 15,” and “focusing coil 16” [0047] and [0051]) side and a build plate side (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Opening A” and “Opening B”), and the opening on the beam irradiating device side (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Opening A”) is formed with an opening size smaller than a size of the opening on the build plate side (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Opening B”) (“For example, it may have a shape which has an opening allowing the passage of radiation and/or beam and which extends outwards from said opening towards the support plate” [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Walrand further discloses wherein the conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2, “chassis 25” [0066]) is disposed at one or a plurality of positions inside the outer conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “heat shield member” [0066]).
Walrand does not explicitly disclose wherein the conical heat shield member is disposed at one or a plurality of positions inside the pyramidal heat shield member.
However, Gao discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 1, “powder bed electron beam additive manufacturing apparatus” [0010]) wherein the heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]) is disposed at one or a plurality of positions inside the pyramidal heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “second insulation structure 401” / “second insulation sheets 401” [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the Walrand’s outer conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 3, “heat shield member” [0066]) for the pyramidal heat shield member taught in Gao (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “fixed heat insulation frame 400” [0076]), because the substitution of one known heat shield member for another would have yielded predictable results of preventing the radiant heat from escaping outwards. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, Walrand further discloses wherein at least one heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “chassis 25” or “heat shield member” [0066]) of the plurality of heat shield members (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “chassis 25” and “heat shield member” [0066]) includes a trap portion (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 2, “space” and “trap portion”) that traps the radiant heat (“In particular, said thermal screen may include a conductive chassis on which plates or sectors are attached, being on the one hand insulated from said chassis and on the other hand insulated from each other” [0023]).
Walrand does not explicitly disclose at least one heat shield member of the plurality of heat shield members includes a trap portion that reflects the radiant heat.
However, Gao discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 1, “powder bed electron beam additive manufacturing apparatus” [0010]) wherein at least one heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “second insulation structure 401” / “second insulation sheets 401” [0077]) of the plurality of heat shield members (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “fixed heat insulation frame 400” and “second insulation structure”/second insulation sheets 401” [0041]) includes a trap portion (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “second insulation material 402” [0074]) that reflects the radiant heat (“The second heat insulation sheet 401 is preferably made of a heat insulation material with high reflectivity… Similarly, the second insulation material 402 is preferably an insulation material with high reflectivity” [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walrand to incorporate the teachings of Gao to have a trap portion capable of reflecting. Doing so allows for preventing the heat from continuing to transfer to the outside, as recognized by Gao, (“Similarly, the second insulation material 402 is preferably an insulation material with high reflectivity, high emissivity and low thermal conductivity, and can be the same or different material as the first insulation material 506 mentioned above“ [0078] and “the first insulation material 506 can largely prevent the heat from continuing to transfer to the outside” [0058]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walrand (W.O. Document No. 2018078057) in view of Gao (C.N. Document No. 110899700), further in view of Ackelid et al. (U.S. Document No. 20180311759), hereinafter Ackelid.
PNG
media_image7.png
584
552
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1a (Ackelid)
PNG
media_image8.png
526
411
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Ackelid)
Regarding claim 6, Walrand further discloses wherein the build plate (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “horizontal platform 3”/ “support plate 3”/ “tray 3”/ “plateau 3” / “support 3” [0040]-[0041]) is formed in a shape in a plan view, and wherein the conical heat shield member (Walrand’s Annotated Figs. 2, “chassis 25” [0066]) is disposed close to an upper surface of the build plate (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “horizontal platform 3”/ “support plate 3”/ “tray 3”/ “plateau 3” / “support 3” [0040]-[0041]) or a build surface of the powder layer when the beam irradiating device (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam gun 11,” “deflection coil 15,” and “focusing coil 16” [0047] and [0051]) irradiates the build plate (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “horizontal platform 3”/ “support plate 3”/ “tray 3”/ “plateau 3” / “support 3” [0040]-[0041]) or the powder layer (“additive manufacturing powder” [0040]) with the electron beam (Walrand’s Annotated Fig. 1, “electron beam 20” [0055]).
Walrand in view of Gao does not explicitly disclose wherein the build plate is formed in a circular shape in a plan view.
However, Ackelid discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus (Ackelid’s Fig. 2, “additive manufacturing apparatus 21” [0034]) wherein the build plate (Ackelid’s Annotated Fig. 1a “build platform 150” [0047] / “work table 150” [0005]) is formed in a circular shape in a plan view (“The build platform 150 inside the build tank 140 may have any desirable shape such as rectangular or circular” [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walrand to incorporate the teachings of Ackelid to have a circular build plate in plan view. Doing so allows for the shape of the cross section of the conical heat shield member to match the shape of the build plate, which can reduce radiant heat from escaping. Thus, the circular build plate in combination with the side walls of the conical heat shield member can lead to an improved heat retention of the molded surface, as recognized by Ackelid (“An exemplary advantage of at least this embodiment is that the lower opening of the hollow construction and the powder table may in contact with each other keeping the metallization and or heat radiation to a minimum [0012]).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walrand (W.O. Document No. 2018078057) in view of Gao (C.N. Document No. 110899700), further in view of Wicker et al. (U.S. Document No. 20220176455), hereinafter Wicker.
PNG
media_image9.png
463
666
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2A (Wicker)
Regarding claim 9, Walrand discloses further comprising: a camera for imaging a build surface of the powder layer (“The device 1 may also include means for measuring temperature, such as an IR or CCD camera which are capable of communicating information about the temperature of the powder layer to the control unit 9 and thus allow the operating parameters of the electron gun 11 or the laser-type source 12 to be adjusted” [0054]),
Gao further discloses wherein the upper wall (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, top side of the “second insulation structure 401” [0076]) of the pyramidal heat shield member (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “second insulation structure 401” / “second insulation sheets 401” [0077]) is disposed to face the build plate (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 8, “forming base plate 501” [0097]), and the upper wall (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, top side of the “second insulation structure 401” [0076]) has a beam passing hole (Gao’s Annotated Fig. 9, “beam passing hole”) for allowing the electron beam (“powder bed electron beam” [0050]) to pass therethrough for securing a field of view of the camera.
Claim 9 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “for allowing the electron beam to pass therethrough” and “for securing a field of view of the camera.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Walrand in view of Gao does not explicitly disclose the upper wall has a camera imaging hole.
However, Wicker discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus (Wicker’s Annotated Fig. 2A, “an apparatus 200 using an electron beam 202 to heat a bed of powder” [0062]) wherein the upper wall (Wicker’s Annotated Fig. 2A, “upper wall”) has a camera imaging hole (Wicker’s Annotated Fig. 2A, “camera imaging hole”) (“An enclosure of brushed stainless-steel walls (called the heat shield 206) is used during the process to reduce heat losses through radiation reflection into the bed of powder” [0063]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walrand in view of Gao to incorporate the teachings of Wicker to have a camera imaging hole. Doing so allows for limited interaction between the camera and the electron beam; this is advantageous to a user as it limits potential damage that could possibly be done to the camera.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walrand (W.O. Document No. 2018078057) in view of Gao (C.N. Document No. 110899700), further in view of Kitamura et al. (W.O. Patent No. 2017163404), hereinafter Kitamura.
PNG
media_image10.png
440
474
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 8A (Kitamura)
Regarding claim 11, Walrand in view of Gao does not explicitly disclose wherein the trap portion is formed in a fin shape in a state of projecting in the horizontal direction from the inner surface of the side wall.
However, Kitamura discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “three-dimensional additive manufacturing apparatus 800” [Pg. 6]) wherein the trap portion (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “fins 871” [Pg. 6]) is formed in a fin shape (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “fins 871” [Pg. 6]) in a state of projecting in the horizontal direction (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “horizontal direction”) from the inner surface of the side wall (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “anti-attachment cover 807” [Pg. 6]) (“As shown in Figure 8A, the anti-attachment cover 807 has a structure that includes fins 871 on the inside. The material of the fin 871 may be the same as or different from the material of the anti-adhesion cover 807. Furthermore, the mounting angle at which the fin 871 is attached to the anti-attachment cover 807 may be acute, obtuse, or any other angle” [Pg. 6]; “While typical materials for the anti-adhesion cover 107 include metals such as titanium (Ti), titanium-based compounds, and alloys such as stainless steel, the material is not limited to these, as long as it exhibits low secondary electron emission“ [Pg. 4]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walrand in view of Gao to incorporate the teachings of Kitamura to have the trap portion form in a fin shape in a state of projecting in the horizontal direction from the inner surface of the side wall. Doing so allows for more backscattered electrons to be trapped, trapping backscattered electrons can increase the amount of secondary electrons, and thus the energy density necessary for producing high resolution three dimensional products, as recognized by Kitamura (“when an electron beam is irradiated during pre-sintering or melting, a large number of reflected electrons and secondary electrons are generated from the irradiation point” [Pg. 4] and “by combining the anti-adhesion cover 807 and the fin 871, the surface area of the mechanism that traps backscattered electrons and secondary electrons is increased, so that more backscattered electrons and secondary electrons can be trapped [Pg. 6]).
Regarding claim 12, Walrand in view of Gao does not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of trap portions are arranged on the inner surface of the side wall at a plurality of heights in the vertical direction.
However, Kitamura discloses a three-dimensional powder bed fusion additive manufacturing apparatus (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “three-dimensional additive manufacturing apparatus 800” [Pg. 6]) wherein a plurality of trap portions (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “fins 871” [Pg. 6]) are arranged on the inner surface of the side wall (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “anti-attachment cover 807” [Pg. 6]) at a plurality of heights in the vertical direction (Kitamura’s Annotated Fig. 8A, “vertical direction”) (“As shown in Figure 8A, the anti-attachment cover 807 has a structure that includes fins 871 on the inside. The material of the fin 871 may be the same as or different from the material of the anti-adhesion cover 807. Furthermore, the mounting angle at which the fin 871 is attached to the anti-attachment cover 807 may be acute, obtuse, or any other angle” [Pg. 6]; “While typical materials for the anti-adhesion cover 107 include metals such as titanium (Ti), titanium-based compounds, and alloys such as stainless steel, the material is not limited to these, as long as it exhibits low secondary electron emission“ [Pg. 4]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walrand in view of Gao to incorporate the teachings of Kitamura to have a plurality of trap portions arranged on the inner surface of the side wall at a plurality of heights in the vertical direction. Doing so allows for an increased amount of surface area capable of trapping back scattered electrons, which is advantageous in additive manufacturing with an electron beam, as trapping backscattered electrons can increase the amount of secondary electrons, and thus the energy density necessary for producing high resolution three dimensional products, as recognized by Kitamura (“when an electron beam is irradiated during pre-sintering or melting, a large number of reflected electrons and secondary electrons are generated from the irradiation point” [Pg. 4] and “by combining the anti-adhesion cover 807 and the fin 871, the surface area of the mechanism that traps backscattered electrons and secondary electrons is increased, so that more backscattered electrons and secondary electrons can be trapped [Pg. 6]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/06/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights