DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/21/26 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 3 and 8 have been canceled. New claim(s) 11 has been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/23/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovaere et al. (US 20210016498 A1), previously cited, 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, previously cited, and Haro Gonzalez et al. (US 20180214984 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, and 10-11, 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 [0001]). 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 [0052]). 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 [0053]). 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 [0057]). 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 a basis of the digital model”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0060]).
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° (between 0.3° and 0.8° for claim 11) 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 objectives, namely surface roughness, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, elongation, Vickers hardness, support structure amount, and build time and cost.
Modified Ovaere teaches determining the optimum build orientation but does not teach how the build orientation adjustment is implemented. Specifically, modified Ovaere is silent regarding an inclination wedge.
Haro Gonzalez is similarly concerned with additive 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 [0002]). 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 “adding an inclination wedge … 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 [0047] and FIG. 8). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “joist 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 [0047]). 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 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 [0062]). 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]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the joist is included in the model). 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; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that support structures, including joist 118, are removed in order to obtain a final part).
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 2, modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. FIGs. 3-4 of Ovaere show the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 1 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 [0050]).
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 9, modified Ovaere teaches the method of claim 1 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 “subsequently, support 100 may be exposed to any variety of finishing processes, e.g., minor machining, sealing, polishing, assembly to another part, etc.” (paragraph [0062]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Office Action asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the additive manufacturing process of Ovaere by optimizing the build orientation as taught by Brika, and to implement this tilt using a "joist 118" as taught by Haro Gonzalez, which would later be removed (Office Action at page 9) and that this combination is based on impermissible hindsight and fails to account for the fundamentally different problems addressed and solutions proposed by the cited references (remarks, page 6). This is not found convincing. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, as stated above, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, therefore such a reconstruction is proper.
Applicant argues that the objective technical problem solved by the claimed invention is not merely to optimize a build, but to address the specific issue of subsidence and surface defects that occur on "downskin" connection sections when manufacturing a part with its central axis perpendicular to the build plate (remarks, page 6). This is not found convincing. In response to applicant's argument that the objective technical problem solved by the claimed invention is to address the specific issue of subsidence and surface defects, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that claimed invention resolves this problem through a specific and unobvious two-stage process (remarks, page 6). Applicant argues that first, during a phase of temporary inclination for manufacturing, an "inclination wedge" is used as a temporary manufacturing aid to slightly tilt the part during the build process, thereby transforming a problematic, single-layer cantilevered section into a progressive, self-supporting multi-layer structure (remarks, page 6). Applicant further argues that second, in a restoration phase, the temporary wedge is removed after manufacturing to restore the part to its intended final geometry and functional orientation (remarks, pages 6-7). Applicant argues that Haro Gonzalez does not teach or suggest this two-stage process (remarks, page 7). Applicant argues that [the joist] is not a temporary tool used to incline a normally horizontal part, but rather a support structure for a component 10 that is designed and intended to be built at an angle (remarks, page 8). This is not found convincing because the part in the instant application is not a normally horizontal part, as argued by applicant, but rather a component that is designed and intended to be built at an angle. See claim 1, “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° with respect to the construction direction.” Haro Gonzalez teaches that “the features 38 of component 10 may require component 10 to be built at an angle” (paragraph [0047] and FIG. 8). Haro Gonzalez does not teach that component 10 is designed and intended to be built at an angle, rather that once it is designed, an analysis may determine that the component needs to be built at an angle. In Haro Gonzalez and the instant application, a wedge or joist is used as a temporary tool to incline a part during manufacture and removed after.
Applicant argues that the joist 118 is an integral component of a powder-removal system (remarks, page 8). Applicant argues that Haro Gonzalez does not suggest adding and then removing a support structure to temporarily alter a part's orientation for manufacturing (remarks, page 8). Applicant further argues that To the contrary, because the joist 118 serves as a cleaning conduit, an ordinary person skilled in the art would retain it during post-processing, not to remove it (remarks, page 8). Applicant argues that the Office Action's citation to Haro Gonzalez at paragraph 62, which references finishing processes for the "support 100," does not teach or suggest removal of the functional joist 118 itself (remarks, page 8). This is not found convincing because powder removal is part of post-processing. Haro Gonzalez teaches that “joist 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 [0047]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, as stated above, joist 118 is a specialized support and would be removed after powder removal, as part of post-processing, in order to obtain a final part.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
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. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
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
Prosecution Insights