DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/31/2023 and 5/1/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-9 recite “A method according to claim 1,” which should be corrected to “The Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4, 6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN110564998) with citations to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method for fusing one or more cross sections in a powder layer ([0013] powder bed) for building one or more objects ([0013] target product) layer by layer with electron beam powder bed fusion ([0005, 0007] layer by layer, electron beam), the method comprising:
pre-sintering only the cross sections in the powder layer by scanning the cross sections with a first line energy ([0015] powder layer is pre-sintered using an electron beam. Based on the layer cutting data and layer scanning data imported into the powder bed type electron beam additive manufacturing forming equipment); and
fusing the cross sections by scanning the cross sections with a second line energy ([0014] the pre-sintered powder layer is melted and scanned using an electron beam to form a single-layer solid sheet);
wherein the second line energy exceeds the first line energy ([0029] scanning is first performed with a lower current density, taken to be the equivalent of a line energy).
Yang does not teach the second line energy exceeds the first line energy by at least a factor of 2.
Yang et al. discloses (pp. [0005]) that first scanning is performed at a lower current density than a second current density, being the equivalent of a first line energy and a second line energy, which needs to be optimized to “avoid movement caused by electron beam impact and improves the uniformity of each component" as in [0029]. The difference between the first and second current densities is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that have a first current density being lower than a second current density improves the uniformity of the produced component.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yang et al. method to have the second line energy exceed the first line energy by a factor of 2 as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the energy of an electron beam as disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang et al. by making the second line energy exceeds the first line energy by at least a factor of 2 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1,
wherein pre-sintering uses a first beam velocity ([0023] scanning speed 8000mm/s～9000mm/s) exceeding a second beam velocity of fusing ([0025] scanning speed of 300 mm/s to 500 mm/s) by a factor of at least 2.
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein pre-sintering comprises scanning exactly the one or more cross sections ([0014] the powder layer is pre-sintered).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising pre-heating the powder layer by scanning the powder layer with a constant line energy over the powder layer ([0043] The pre-sintering process parameters are: scanning current 20mA, scanning speed 8000mm/s, taken to be a constant energy).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein a first beam velocity during pre-sintering is greater than 50 m/s ([0023] scanning speed 8000mm/s～9000mm/).
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches a method for building one or more objects ([0013] target product) layer by layer ([0005, 0007] layer by layer), the method comprising:
fusing one or more cross sections in one or more powder layers [0015] powder layer) by:
pre-sintering only the cross sections in the powder layer by scanning the cross sections with a first line energy ([0015] powder layer is pre-sintered using an electron beam. Based on the layer cutting data and layer scanning data imported into the powder bed type electron beam additive manufacturing forming equipment); and
fusing the cross sections by scanning the cross sections with a second line energy ([0014] the pre-sintered powder layer is melted and scanned using an electron beam to form a single-layer solid sheet);
wherein the second line energy exceeds the first line energy ([0029] scanning is first performed with a lower current density, taken to be the equivalent of a line energy).
Yang does not teach the second line energy exceeds the first line energy by at least a factor of 2.
Yang et al. discloses (pp. [0005]) that first scanning is performed at a lower current density than a second current density, being the equivalent of a first line energy and a second line energy, which needs to be optimized to “avoid movement caused by electron beam impact and improves the uniformity of each component" as in [0029]. The difference between the first and second current densities is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that have a first current density being lower than a second current density improves the uniformity of the produced component.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yang et al. method to have the second line energy exceed the first line energy by a factor of 2 as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the energy of an electron beam as disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang et al. by making the second line energy exceeds the first line energy by at least a factor of 2 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches an electron beam powder bed fusion system for fusing one or more cross sections in a powder layer for building one or more objects ([0013] target product) layer by layer ([0005, 0007] layer by layer, electron beam), the system comprising:
a platform ([0013] powder box) holding a powder bed ([0013] powder bed); and
an electron beam scanner ([0013] electron beam additive manufacturing equipment) configured to:
pre-sintering only the cross sections in the powder layer by scanning the cross sections with a first line energy ([0015] powder layer is pre-sintered using an electron beam. Based on the layer cutting data and layer scanning data imported into the powder bed type electron beam additive manufacturing forming equipment); and
fusing the cross sections by scanning the cross sections with a second line energy ([0014] the pre-sintered powder layer is melted and scanned using an electron beam to form a single-layer solid sheet);
wherein the second line energy exceeds the first line energy ([0029] scanning is first performed with a lower current density, taken to be the equivalent of a line energy)
Yang does not teach the second line energy exceeds the first line energy by at least a factor of 2.
Yang et al. discloses (pp. [0005]) that first scanning is performed at a lower current density than a second current density, being the equivalent of a first line energy and a second line energy, which needs to be optimized to “avoid movement caused by electron beam impact and improves the uniformity of each component" as in [0029]. The difference between the first and second current densities is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that have a first current density being lower than a second current density improves the uniformity of the produced component.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yang et al. system to have the second line energy exceed the first line energy by a factor of 2 as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the energy of an electron beam as disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yang et al. by making the second line energy exceeds the first line energy by at least a factor of 2 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN110564998) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shionuma (US11554442).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein pre-sintering and fusing are carried out with an equal beam diameter.
Shionuma teaches wherein pre-sintering and fusing are carried out with an equal beam diameter (Col. 9 lines 40-60 electron beam B carries out preheating and heating, taken to have the same diameter).
Yang and Shionuma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electron beam fusing. It would have been obvious to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Shionuma to have the pre-sintering and fusing be carried out with an equal beam diameter in order to be able to suppress the scattering of powder material when the powder is preheated, allowing smooth manufacturing of the desired object (Shionuma Col. 2 lines 50-60).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN110564998) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN102383126) with citations to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, but is silent on further comprising post-heating at least parts of the one or more cross sections after fusing by scanning at least parts of the cross sections with a non-uniform line energy to achieve a uniform temperature distribution over the cross sections.
Zhou teaches further comprising post-heating at least parts of the one or more cross sections after fusing by scanning at least parts of the cross sections ([0013] coating) with a non-uniform line energy ([0013] power of the post-heat laser beam is 0.12~0.8 kW) to achieve a uniform temperature distribution over the cross sections ([0013] coating is subjected to post-heat treatment by a post-heat laser beam, to achieve post-heat temperature is 200~850℃).
Yang and Zhou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electron beam fusing. It would have been obvious to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to post heat the parts to reduce the residual stress in the coating created by fusing on the powder bed (Zhou [0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, but is silent on further comprising post-heating each one of the cross sections by scanning each of the cross sections with a uniform line energy, to achieve a uniform temperature distribution in the respective cross section
Zhou teaches further comprising post-heating each one of the cross sections by scanning each of the cross sections with a uniform line energy ([0032] post-heat laser beam is 200 W), to achieve a uniform temperature distribution in the respective cross section ([0013] coating is subjected to post-heat treatment by a post-heat laser beam, to achieve post-heat temperature is 200~850℃).
It would have been obvious to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to post heat the parts to reduce the residual stress in the coating created by fusing on the powder bed (Zhou [0013]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN110564998) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larsson (US20120211926).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Larsson
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, but is silent on further comprising post-heating by dividing each cross section into subsections and applying a definable line energy to each subsection to achieve a uniform temperature distribution in the respective cross section.
Larsson teaches further comprising post-heating by dividing each cross section into subsections (P1-P5) and applying a definable line energy (PM.N) to each subsection to achieve a uniform temperature distribution in the respective cross section ([0038] The first time the pre-heating area 10 is scanned, the scanning procedure is such that the first path PM.1 in each sub-area P1 to P5 is scanned. When this initial step is finished, the pre-heating area 10 is re-scanned by scanning the second path PM.2 in each sub-area P1 to P5. In the next re-scan, the third path PM.3 in each sub-area P1 to P5 is scanned, and so on; where post-heating is taken to be performed after PM.1, Fig. 2).
Yang and Larsson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electron beam fusing. It would have been obvious to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Larsson to post heat sections with line energy in order to homogenously heath the cross section (Larsson [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches a method according to claim 1, but is silent on post-heating by determining an edge region within each cross section and applying a uniform line energy to each edge region.
Larsson teaches further comprising post-heating by determining an edge region (P6) within each cross section and applying a uniform line energy to each edge region ([0038] The first time the pre-heating area 10 is scanned, the scanning procedure is such that the first path PM.1 in each sub-area P1 to P5 is scanned. When this initial step is finished, the pre-heating area 10 is re-scanned by scanning the second path PM.2 in each sub-area P1 to P5. In the next re-scan, the third path PM.3 in each sub-area P1 to P5 is scanned, and so on; where post-heating is taken to be performed after PM.1, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Larsson to post heat an edge region with line energy in order to homogenously heath the cross section (Larsson [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/3/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761