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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/25 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As noted previously, claims 8-13 are drawn to an apparatus. "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) (emphasis in original). 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). Moreover, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (See MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of that claimed. In this case, “part blank”, “part of turbine engine” are workpieces which do not appear to structurally contribute to the device.
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.
Claims 8-11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant-admitted prior art (“AAPA”, see specification prior art figs. 1A-1B) in view of Zehavi et al. (US 2017/0072467, hereafter “Zehavi”) & Phillips et al. (US 2022/0212263, hereafter “Phillips”).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA discloses a device for additive manufacturing of a part of a turbine engine, comprising: a manufacturing support 4 (fig. 1B), for additive manufacturing of a part of a turbine engine; a part blank 2 for forming a part of a turbine engine (fig. 1A), said part blank provided with a surface region 2B, wherein, for the manufacture of said part by additive manufacturing, said manufacturing support is disposed over and in contact with said surface region of said part blank (fig. 1B; specification pg. 2, lines 1-3).
AAPA differs from the claim in lacking at least one rough region on the part blank surface. However, such feature is known in the art. Zehavi (also drawn to apparatus for additive manufacturing- [0002-0003]) discloses a manufacturing support 124 (figs. 3A, 3D) disposed over a platform 104 comprising a blank 128 for forming a 3D object/part, wherein the blank is provided with an array of holes 132 & projections/posts 127 forming at least one localized rough region having an arithmetic average roughness parameter Ra being greater than 100 microns (figs. 3B-3C). Examiner notes there is no upper limit for the roughness parameter and the feature of patterns 10 mm wide does not limit the part blank in this apparatus claim. Zehavi teaches that the surface projections form a gap 123 which increases efficiency of fusing operations and reduces the amount of energy provided to the powder from being absorbed by the platform 104; moreover, the posts prevent residual heating of other powder contacting the platform as the fusing operations occur [0043]. Although Zehavi does not mention machining for the blank 128, such technique is known in the art. Phillips (also directed to additive manufacturing and rotating support) teaches a blank support table comprising a machined formed V-shaped groove rough region that creates a sufficiently rough surface that traps the powder and provides an economic way to address the problem of unstable powder application (see para. [0484,0487]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide at least one machined rough region on the blank surface in the additive manufacturing device of AAPA because doing so would form a gap which increases efficiency of fusing operations, reduce the amount of energy from being absorbed by the platform, and improve powder retention, as suggested by Zehavi & Phillips.
As to claim 9, AAPA shows that said part blank 2 and said manufacturing support 4 are arranged on a tray 8, said manufacturing support being disposed under and in contact with a portion of said part blank, the portion forming an angle smaller than 45° with respect to a plane parallel to the main plane of said tray (fig. 1B).
As to claim 10, AAPA as modified by Zehavi & Phillips in claim 8 above discloses a device for additive manufacturing comprising at least one localized, machined rough region on the part blank.
As to claim 11, AAPA discloses the part blank portion made of a metal alloy to make metal parts with complex shapes using SLM/SLS (pg. 7-13).
Regarding claim 13, AAPA discloses a system for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing comprising a device according to claim 8 (fig. 1, pg. 1).
As to claim 16, AAPA as modified by Zehavi & Phillips in claim 8 above discloses a localized machined rough region on a horizontal portion of a blank 128 (fig. 3), wherein the manufacturing support 4 (AAPA) is configured to support a cantilevered element of said part blank.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Zehavi & Phillips as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dreano (US 2018/0326495).
As to claim 12, AAPA is silent whether the manufacturing support is a cellular support provided with cavities. However, such support is known in the art. Dreano (also drawn to making turbine engine parts by additive manufacturing- abstract, [0001-0005]) discloses a removable support 6 of cellular type ([0013], claim 5). Dreano teaches that cellular hollow support avoids consuming too much material during the fabrication method since the support ends up being removed after all [0038]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a hollow cellular support having cavities in the additive manufacturing of AAPA because it avoids consuming too much material during the fabrication method, thereby resulting in cost-savings, as suggested by Dreano.
Allowable Subject Matter
Method Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including ALL of the limitations of the base claim. Method Claims 17-18 appear allowable over prior art.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 8, new grounds of 103 rejection have been set forth above, which now also rely on the Phillips reference and discloses machined rough region on the part blank. Examiner notes that part blank (workpiece) does not limit the apparatus claim 8 or dependent claims thereof. Whereas method claims 14-15 and 17-18 are allowable based on specific features of the part blank.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735