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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the webs formed by fusion with an average overlap of 20% and ±10% must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 10 are rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as anticipated by Dimter et al. (10,493,562).
Dimter anticipates:
Regarding claim 1, a method for producing an object layer by layer using a powder-based 3D printing method by selective fusing of layers of a powder in a powder bed with a selective laser melting process or selective electron beam melting process, (Examiner Note: The preamble is a statement of intended use, and thus not considered limiting with regards to claim scope. [MPEP 2114-II])
wherein at least two successive layers [700a, 700b, Fig. 9] are part of a group [Fig. 9] the method comprising, for each
providing a first layer of the powder [700a, Col. 9 L 16-24]
fusing at least one part of the first layer [700a, Col. 9 L 56-61] with first exposure vectors [S1-12, Fig. 6] arranged parallel to one another [Fig. 6, Col. 4 L 25-8] and at a defined spacing [Col. 4 L 41-44, Col. 14 L 27-8] (Examiner Note: Dimter discloses the stripes of each layer are “regularly arranged” and thus reads onto this limitation.) with respect to one another,
providing a second layer of powder, [700b]
fusing at least one part of the second layer [700b, Col. 9 L 56-61] with second exposure vectors arranged at an offset [Col. 4 L 45-56] (Examiner Note: Dimter discloses the stripe segments (i.e. exposure vectors) advance in the same direction for each layer and can vary in spacing between layers, therefore, the exposure vectors of successive layers can be formed at an offset relative to other layers.) parallel [Col. 4 L 25-8] to the first exposure vectors. [Col. 13 L 41-5] (Examiner Note: Dimter discloses each layer is formed by a plurality of parallel linear stripes, and does not require rotation of the stripe formation direction between layers. Accordingly, when no rotation occurs between layers, the stripe formation direction of a subsequent layer would be parallel to that of the preceding layer.)
wherein the exposure vectors of successive groups are rotated by an angle relative to one another. [Fig. 9] [Col. 13 L 52-61] (Examiner Note: Fig. 9 specifically illustrates at least 2 layers (700a, 700b) formed along the same stripe formation direction (L) before changing the direction of stripe formation. Dimter discloses, but does not require, a rotation of the stripe formation direction between adjacent layers. Therefore, rotation can occur after any number of layers such that rotation of stripe formation direction can occur relative to successive groups of layers rather than adjacent layers.)
Regarding claim 5, wherein the orientation of one of the following groups corresponds to the original group again at the earliest after the fusion of 10 groups. [Col. 13 L 52-61] (Examiner Note: Dimter discloses a rotation of the stripe formation direction of at least 30 degrees, thus, a group will not correspond to the orientation of the original group until at least 12 groups (360 degrees divided 30 degrees per group) and therefore, anticipates this limitation.)
Regarding claim 6, wherein the angle is at least 30 degrees. [Col. 13 L 52-61].
Regarding claim 7, wherein the angle is at most 150 degrees. [Col. 13 L 52-61] (Examiner Note: If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. [MPEP 2131.03-I] Dimter discloses a stripe formation direction of at least 30 degrees, and less than 80 degrees, which is within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 8, wherein the angle is not 90 degrees or an integer multiple of 90 degrees. [Col. 13 L 52-61] (Examiner Note: If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. [MPEP 2131.03-I] Dimter discloses a difference in stripe formation direction of at least 30 degrees, and less than 80 degrees, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
One of the groups comprises a third layer; [700c, Fig. 9]
The second layer [700b] is offset by a first offset with respect to the first layer [700a]; [Col. 4 L 22-8, 45-56]
The third layer [700c] is arranged offset by a second offset with respect to the second layer. (700b) [Col. 4 L 22-8, 45-56]
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimter (10,493,562), and further in view of Herzog (2005/0142024).
As discussed above, Dimter discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Dimter further discloses a laser beam width of at least 5 mm and at most 50 mm, and cites to Herzog for additional arrangements for the stripe sections. [Col. 4 L 41-44, Col. 14 L 33-37]
Regarding claim 2, Dimter does not disclose wherein webs formed by fusion have an average overlap of at most 20%.
However, Herzog discloses an overlap of “approximately .03 – 5mm” between adjacent webs and thus discloses the claimed limitation. [para. 16] (Examiner Note: A beam width of 5 mm with an average overlap of 1 mm has an average overlap of 20%.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an average overlap of at most 20%. Under MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." [MPEP 2144.05-I] The claimed range of 20% average overlap lies is within the range disclosed by the combined references [Dimter, Herzog]. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected as obvious over Dimter in view of Herzog.
Regarding claim 3, Dimter does not disclose wherein the webs formed by fusion have an average overlap of 10% to -10%.
However, Herzog discloses an overlap of “approximately .03 – 5mm” between adjacent webs and thus discloses the claimed limitation. [para. 16] (Examiner Note: A beam width of 50 mm with an average overlap of 5 mm has an average overlap of 10%.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an average overlap of ±10%. Under MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." [MPEP 2144.05-I] The claimed range of ±10% average overlap lies is within the range disclosed by the combined references [Dimter, Herzog]. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Dimter in view of Herzog.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimter (10,493,562), and further in view of Darrah et al. (6,694,207)
As discussed above, Dimter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Dimter does not disclose “wherein the offset corresponds at most to 50% of a width of the webs produced by fusion.”
However, Darrah discloses the spacing of the scanning vectors for successive layers is, “staggered by one-half the value of fill scan spacing parameter L, or L/2.” [Col. 10 L 23-4] In other words, the layers are offset at half the width of the web (i.e. fill scans), and therefore, meets this limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an offset of at most half of the width of the webs produced by fusion to optimize structural strength and processing efficiency. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize Dimter could be combined with Darrah with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed at methods for laser sintering. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Darrah with Dimter because Darrah discloses that offsetting the scan lines of successive layers at half of the web width, “optimizes the structural strength of the article being formed, while minimizing the number of scans required to form the article.” [Abstract]. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Dimter in view of Darrah.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimter (10,493,562), and further in view of Renishaw PLC (EP 3,482,853).
As discussed above, Dimter discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Dimter does not disclose wherein the webs formed by fusion penetrate at least the preceding layer.
However, Renishaw discloses, “at least one of the layers 201a to 201e … are consolidated together with corresponding regions of at least one of the other layers 201 a to 201e throughout a thickness of the and the at least one other layer 201a to 201e." [para. 41] In other words, fusion penetrates at least the preceding layer, and therefore, meets this limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Dimter with webs penetrating more than one layer in order to reduce gaps and increase the overall strength of the consolidated material. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize Dimter could be combined with Renishaw PLC with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed at methods for laser sintering. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Renishaw PLC with Dimter because Renishaw PLC discloses that fusion of the preceding layer allows “each of these regions [to] contract individually as it cools,” thus reducing residual stresses caused by shrinking and mitigating, “warping of the object and the presence of pores within the object.” [Para 10, 43] One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate these teachings as they improve the overall strength and quality of the consolidated material. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Dimter in view of Renishaw PLC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
John Chambers
Examiner, AU 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761