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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/17/23 has been considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation the central axis of the part has an angle β of between 0.1° and 1° with respect to the construction direction , and the claim also recites preferably between 0.3° and 0.8° which is the narrower statement of the range. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1. 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 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. Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claim s 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovaere et al. (US 20210016498 A1), in view of Brika et al. , Multi-Objective Build Orientation Optimization for Powder Bed Fusion by Laser , J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Nov 2017, 139(11): 111011 (9 pages) , https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4037570 . Regarding claim s 1 and 10 , Ovaere teaches “ the forming of a bearing support of an aircraft engine by additive manufacturing ” (which reads upon “ a method for manufacturing an aeronautical part by additive manufacturing ”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 10; paragraph [00 01 ]). Ovaere teaches that “the bearing support 21 has a general shape of revolution about an axis AX coincident with the longitudinal axis of the engine wherein it is intended to be mounted ” (which reads upon “ the part to be manufactured extending around a central axis ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 52 ]). Ovaere teaches that “the cylindrical element 23 extends from a first edge 25 to a circular second edge 26 that substantially has the same diameters while still being spaced from one another along the axis AX ” (which reads upon “ a first wall ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 53 ]). Ovaere teaches that “ a series of rings 37, 38, 39, 41 extends beyond the cone 22 to the axis AX ” (which reads upon a second wall angled with respect to the first wall , as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 57 ]). Ovaere FIGs. 3-4 show at least two walls angled with respect to one another and connected to one another by means of at least one connection section comprised in a connection plane perpendicular to the central axis . Ovaere teaches “the additive manufacturing on a bed of powder designates the adding of material layer by layer, on a build plate of a dedicated machine, to form a physical object from a digital model ” (which reads upon “ comprising the method comprising providing a digital model of the part to be manufactured , manufacturing the part by additive manufacturing on the basis of the digital model ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0 06 0]). Ovaere discloses the claimed invention except for orienting the digital model with respect to a vertical construction direction of the part so that the central axis of the part has an angle β of between 0.1° and 1° preferably between 0.3° and 0.8° with respect to the construction direction, and that the model is obtained at the orientation step . It should be noted that orientation angle is a result effective variable. Brika teaches “an integrated approach to determine optimal build orientation for powder bed fusion by laser (PBF-L), by simultaneously optimizing mechanical properties, surface roughness, the amount of support structure (SUPP), and build time and cost.” (page 111011-1). Brika teaches that “normalized weights are assigned to different objectives depending on their relative importance allowing solving the multi-objective optimization problem using a genetic optimization algorithm” (page 111011-1). Brika teaches that “the important aim of this work is to determine the optimal build orientation by simultaneously optimizing mechanical properties including yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, elongation, Vickers hardness, surface roughness, support structure, build time, and total cost” (pages 111011-1-2). Brika teaches that “powder bed fusion by laser produces parts with mechanical properties comparable to those of bulk materials” (page 111011-2). Brika teaches that “due to the “layer by layer” nature of the method, the mechanical properties of produced parts are characterized by a certain degree of anisotropy; hence, it is important to select an appropriate build orientation that considers the loading direction applied to the part” (page 111011-2). Brika teaches that “the algorithm will try various solutions, and for each configuration, different objective values, namely mechanical properties, surface roughness, support structure, build time, and cost, are estimated, and that the solution is evaluated using Eq. (3) and the multi-objective optimization results must meet the operator requirements, and if so, the processed configuration is compared to the stored optimal configuration to determine which one is the best” (page 111011-2). Brika teaches that “this iteration continues, until obtaining the optimal build orientation of the part” (page 111011-2). Brika teaches that “software has been developed to automatically determine the optimum build orientation for selective laser melting by simultaneously optimizing different objective, namely surface roughness, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, elongation, Vickers hardness, support structure amount, and build time and cost” (page 111011-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the model with the claimed orientation angle since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize different objective s , namely surface roughness, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, elongation, Vickers hardness, support structure amount, and build time and cost . Regarding claim 2 , modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. FIGs. 3-4 of Ovaere show the claimed limitation. Claim s 3 -9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovaere et al. (US 20210016498 A1) and Brika et al., Multi-Objective Build Orientation Optimization for Powder Bed Fusion by Laser, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Nov 2017, 139(11): 111011 (9 pages), https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4037570 , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haro Gonzalez et al. (US 20180214984 A1). Regarding claim 3 and 5-6 , modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Ovaere is silent regarding an inclination wedge. Haro Gonzalez is similarly concerned with a dditive manufacturing systems [which] may build such components by continuously layering powder material in predetermined areas and performing a material transformation process, such as sintering, on the powder material (paragraph [00 02 ]). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “ the features 38 of component 10 may require component 10 to be built at an angle and/or built on or braced by at least one joist 118 formed, positioned and/or built on build surface 104 of support 100 ” (which reads upon “ wherein the step of orienting the digital model comprises adding an inclination wedge to the digital model between a horizontal construction plane and a plane comprising a lower end of the part to be manufactured, so as to incline the central axis by the angle β with respect to the vertical construction direction ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 47 ] and FIG. 8 ). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “ j oist 118 may be shaped and/or configured to support component 10 including features 38, and/or allow the AMS ( additive manufacturing system ) (see, FIG. 14) to build component 10 including features 38 ” (paragraph [00 47 ]). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “ code 920 may include a precisely defined 3D model of support 100 and/or component 10 ” (which reads upon “ adding an inclination wedge to the digital model ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 62 ]). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “ the AMS (see, FIG. 14) may build, create and/or additively manufacture joist 118 directly on build surface 104 of support 100 by performing similar additive manufacturing process(es) that may form and/or build support 100 and/or component 10 ” (paragraph [0 05 0] ; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the joist is included in the model ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the model of Ovaere to include a wedge or joist , as taught by Haro Gonzalez to facilitate the desired build orientation. Regarding claims 5-6, orienting bearing 21 of Ovaere on joist 118 of Haro Gonzalez would result in the claimed orientations. Regarding claim 4 , modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 3 as stated above. Haro Gonzalez teaches that “joist 118 may be formed from the same material as build plate 34, component 10 and/or support 100” (paragraph [0 05 0]). Regarding claim 7 , modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 6 as stated above. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Regarding claim s 8-9 , modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 3 as stated above. Haro Gonzalez teaches that “the AMS (see, FIG. 14) may build, create and/or additively manufacture joist 118 directly on build surface 104 of support 100 by performing similar additive manufacturing process(es) that may form and/or build support 100 and/or component 10” (paragraph [0050] ; joist is a specialized support which undergoes the same processes as support 100 ). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “ s ubsequently, support 100 may be exposed to any variety of finishing processes, e.g., minor machining, sealing, polishing, assembly to another part, etc.” (paragraph [00 62 ]). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434 . The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401 . 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /REBECCA JANSSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733