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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 17 July 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the previous Drawing objections, which have been withdrawn. However, the Applicant’s amendment have provided new grounds for a Drawing objection.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the Specification objections, which have been withdrawn.
New Claim objections have been added in the present Office action.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, but the examiner was not persuaded. Accordingly, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC 101 still stand.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections, which have been withdrawn. However, the Applicant’s amendments have provided new grounds for additional 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 17 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 17 July 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 3-8 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 9-21 are new.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending.
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 “main portion of surfaces” of claims 12 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Although the Instant Application is a 371 application, the rules for international applications have a similar rule—“drawings are required when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention” (pct Article 7 / 37 CFR 13.437). In this case, a drawing depicting the “main portion” is necessary to understand what is being claimed.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, recommend amending line 7 to recite: “…wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the first irradiation vectors comprises a…”
In claim 3, recommend amending line 6 to recite: “…wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the second irradiation vectors comprises a…”
In claim 7, recommend amending line 3 of the claim to recite: “defining, with a computer aided design (CAD) file…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 6-8 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 6-8 recites at least one step or instruction for concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 6-8 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, claim 6 recites: “A computer (additional element)-implemented method for providing manufacturing instructions for the additive manufacturing of a component (judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) with an energy beam (additional element), comprising defining first irradiation parameters having a length below 1 mm (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) for a layer of the component (additional element), wherein the first irradiation parameters are for the energy beam (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) in a pulsed irradiation mode (additional element) and wherein the first irradiation parameters comprise a pulse frequency below 3 kHz and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, claim 7 recites: “The method as claimed in claim 6, which wherein the computer-implemented method is a computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) method (additional element) comprising: defining, with a CAD file (additional element), a geometry of the component (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); reading, into an additive manufacturing facility (additional element), the CAD file (additional element); and dividing, based on the CAD file, the geometry of the component into a plurality of layers comprising the layer (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).”
Additionally, claim 8 recites: “A computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium (additional element), comprising commands (judgment and evaluation, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which, upon execution of a corresponding program by a computer (additional elements), cause the computer to implement the defining step of the method as claimed in claim 1 (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).”
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent Claim 7) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 6 and 8), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h).
More specifically, the additional elements of: a computer, computer-aided manufacturing method, CAD file, and a computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 6 and 8, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 6-8 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a computer, energy beam, a layer of the component, pulsed irradiation mode, computer-aided manufacturing method, CAD file, additive manufacturing facility, and a computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “computer” is described generically as being a “computer, a data processing device, or a control device.” Regarding the “energy beam” and the “pulsed irradiation mode,” the Specification describes how “a method for selective laser melting with pulsed radiation is known, for example, from EP 3 022 008 B1.” Concerning the “layer of the component” and the “additive manufacturing facility,” the Specification describes how “laser based powder fusion” or LPBF is “conventional,” where it is known to be used for “the manufacturing of gas turbine blades” in an LPBF facility. The “computer program product” is generically described as “(volatile or nonvolatile) memory medium, such as a memory card, a USB stick, a CD-ROM, or DVD, or also in the form of a downloadable file from a server and/or in a network” containing “program code, machine code or numeric control instructions, such as G code, and/or other executable program instructions in general.” Finally, with respect to the “computer-aided manufacturing method” and the “CAD file,” the Specification describes how “a manufacturing or production step of a component can take place substantially on the basis of a corresponding CAD file and the selection of corresponding manufacturing parameters.”
Thus, based on the Specification, the claimed additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “computer,” and “computer program product” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer or computer program product. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 6 and 8 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods and product of Claims 6-8 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 6 and 8 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 6-8 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 6-8 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are “use” claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2173.05.q).
These new rejections are provided based on claims that were newly added in the submission filed 20 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The “first section” and “second section” of claims 10-11 and 18-19 as well as the “first component section” of claim 13 are not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application. Although the arguments filed 17 July 2026 reference paragraphs 0020 and 0045 of the Specification as well as fig. 2 of the Drawings for support for these claimed “sections,” there is no mention of “sections” in paragraph 0045, and fig. 2 does not show any “sections” for the component 10.
These new rejections are provided based on claims that were newly added in the submission filed 20 January 2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites: “A computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium, comprising: commands which, upon execution of a corresponding program by a computer cause the computer it to implement the defining step of the method as in claim 1. It is unclear how much of the “defining step of the method” from claim 1 is required in claim 8. Claim 1 recites the “defining step” as: “defining first irradiation vectors having a length below 1 mm for a layer of the component.” It is unclear if “a layer of the component” is required if the “defining step” is to be implemented. If the “layer of the component” is required, then it is unclear if claim 8 is directed to a “computer program product” or something more than a computer product, i.e., something that can include a “layer of the component.” It is also unclear if the limitation in claim 1 “wherein the first irradiation vectors are hatching irradiation vectors” applies in claim 8. Notably, this limitation is not part of the “defining step;” however, this limitation is directed to the “first irradiation vectors,” which are required in the “defining step” of claim 1. Finally, it is unclear if a “computer” is required within the scope of claim 8, which is directed to a “computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium.” Claim 8 requires a computer program product that comprises commands, which are executed on a computer to implement a method step. If a computer is not within the scope of claim 8, then it is not clear whether the limitation “cause the computer to implement the defining step of the method in clam 1” has any patentable weight. In other words, claim 8 requires a method step for a computer, but it is not clear whether the computer is within the scope of the claim because claim 8 is directed to a “computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium.” Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises a computer program product with “commands,” it will be presumed that the product can operate as intended.
Claims 10-11, 13, and 18-19 claim a “first section,” a “second section,” and a “first component section.” However, these limitations are not described in the Specification (see 35 USC 112a rejections above). As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know if they were infringing on these limitations, because they are not described in the Specification such that one ordinary skill would be able to understand what is being claimed.
Claim 12 recites:” wherein the hatching irradiation vectors relate to a main portion of surfaces of the layer to be irradiated.” Similarly, claim 20 recites: “wherein the hatching irradiation vectors relate to a main portion of surfaces of the first layer to be irradiated.” It is unclear how a layer can have multiple “surfaces” that are irradiated. Referencing fig. 1 of the Drawings, it appears that the powder only has a top surface of the layer, which is irradiated. The Specification only repeats the language that is used in the claims, and the main portion is not shown in any of the drawings (see drawing objection above). For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interrupted in view of fig. 1 as only requiring a singular surface that is irradiated.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first irradiation parameters.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite “first irradiation parameters.” Instead, claim 1 recites “first irradiation vectors.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “…wherein the first irradiation vectors are matched…”
Regarding claim 14-15 and 21, the claims attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process (MPEP 2173.05.q). Specifically, the claims require the use of the method according to claims 1 and 17. The claims are indefinite because they merely recite a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 16 recites: “…defining contour irradiation vectors for the layer, wherein the contour irradiation vectors border the hatching irradiation vectors to solidify a border area.” It is not clear if this limitation requires irradiating “contour irradiation vectors” or simply “defining … contour irradiation vectors.” Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 requires “irradiating, with the energy beam, the layer based on the first irradiation vector…. wherein the first irradiation vectors are hatching irradiation vectors.” Thus, the “hatching irradiation vectors” are actually “irradiated” and not merely “defined.” As a result, it would appear that the “contour irradiation vectors” need to be irradiated. However, claim 16 requires “defining” the “contour irradiation vectors” and does not explicitly state that the “contour irradiation vectors” need to be irradiated. For the purpose of the examination, claim 16 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as not requiring the “contour irradiation vectors” to be irradiated.
Claim 20 recites: “…wherein the first irradiation vectors are hatching irradiation vectors; wherein the hatching irradiation vectors relate to a main portion of surfaces of the first layer to be irradiated; and wherein the method further comprises defining contour irradiation vectors for the first layer, wherein the contour irradiation vectors border the hatching irradiation vectors to solidify a border area.” It is not clear if this limitation requires irradiating “contour irradiation vectors” or simply “defining … contour irradiation vectors.” The claim also requires “wherein the hatching irradiation vectors relate to a main portion of surfaces of the first layer to be irradiated.” Thus, the “hatching irradiation vectors” are actually “irradiated” and not merely “defined.” As a result, it would appear that the “contour irradiation vectors” need to be irradiated. However, claim 20 requires “defining” the “contour irradiation vectors” and does not explicitly state that the “contour irradiation vectors” need to be irradiated. For the purpose of the examination, claim 20 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as not requiring the “contour irradiation vectors” to be irradiated.
These new rejections are provided based on claims that were newly added in the submission filed 20 January 2026.
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 1-2, 5-8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20150183165-A1) in view of Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Abe teaches a method (“Manufacturing Method of the Present Invention,” para 0050) for powder bed-based additive manufacturing (figs. 1A-B) of a component (solidified layer 24, fig. 1B) with an energy beam (beam L, fig. 1B), comprising:
defining first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7; “hatching path,” para 0050) having a length below 1 mm (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed such that below 1 mm is considered a short path) for a layer (portion of powder layer shown in fig. 7) of the component,
irradiating, with the energy beam, the layer based on the first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) below a length of 1 mm
wherein the first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) are hatching irradiation vectors (“hatching path,” para 0050).
Abe, fig. 7
PNG
media_image1.png
1213
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Abe does not explicitly disclose a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the first irradiation vectors comprise a pulse frequency below 3 kHz and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches a pulsed irradiation mode (the KV2 vector is pulsed, para 0077), wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the first irradiation vectors comprise a pulse frequency below 3 kHz (“between 1 and 50 Hz,” para 0068) and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s (“selected as less than 200 mm/s,” para 0076).
Geisen, fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
570
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by using the irradiation parameters for the KV2 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, in order to use vectors that reduce the radiation power as a result of pulsing or modulating the laser power instead of using continuous power, for the advantage of decreasing the likelihood of hot cracks or deformations that might result in the small component areas at the edges of thin walls or corners (Geisen, paras 0065 and 0077; Abe teaches reducing the output power for the “short sub-irradiation paths,” para 0053).
Regarding claim 5, Abe teaches further comprising: defining third irradiation parameters having a length above 2 mm for the layer of the component (the “long sub-irradiation paths” have a length of at least 1.5 mm in the powder layer shown in fig. 7, para 0057; construed such that lengths above 2 mm are classified as “long sub-irradiation paths”).
Abe does not explicitly disclose irradiating, with the energy beam, the layer based on the third irradiation vectors in a continuous irradiation mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches irradiating, with the energy beam (beam from energy beam source 20, fig. 1), the layer (layer S, fig. 1) based on the third irradiation vectors in a continuous irradiation mode (vectors KV1 are “continuously irradiated,” para 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by using the irradiation parameters for the KV1 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the long sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, in order to use vectors that have high radiation power, because in the long sub-irradiation paths, the melted region is not likely to thermally deform due to the longer length of the paths and the inner positioning of the paths (in contrast with the short sub-irradiation paths, which have short lengths and which are on the edges), permitting more heat to be transferred to the additively manufactured object without concern of deformation (Geisen, para 0065 and 0077; Abe teaches that the output power for the “long sub-irradiation paths” is greater than the short paths, para 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Abe teaches additive manufacturing (“Method for manufacturing three-dimensional shaped object,” title) of a component (solidified layer 24, fig. 1B) with an energy beam (beam L, fig. 1B), comprising: defining first irradiation parameters (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7; “hatching path,” para 0050) having a length below 1 mm (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed such that below 1 mm is considered a short path) for a layer (portion of powder layer shown in fig. 7) of the component; wherein the first irradiation vectors are hatching irradiation vectors.
Abe does not explicitly disclose a computer-implemented method for providing manufacturing instructions for the additive manufacturing of a component, wherein the first irradiation parameters are for the energy beam in a pulsed irradiation mode and wherein the first irradiation parameters comprise a pulse frequency below 3 kHz and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches a computer-implemented method (“computer,” para 0016) for providing manufacturing instructions (“program is executed by a computer or a data processing device,” para 0036) for the additive manufacturing of a component (component 10, fig. 1), wherein the first irradiation parameters are for the energy beam in a pulsed irradiation mode (the KV2 vector is pulsed, para 0077) and wherein the first irradiation parameters comprise a pulse frequency below 3 kHz (“between 1 and 50 Hz,” para 0068) and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s (“selected as less than 200 mm/s,” para 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by programming into a CAD file, as taught by Geisen, the division of sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe in fig. 7, and by using the irradiation parameters for the KV2 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, in order to generate a CAD file that provides irradiation parameters, which can be uploaded or downloaded in a computer-aided manufacturing process, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired irradiation parameters are set and maintained during radiation (Geisen, paras 0085-0086) and in order to use vectors that reduce the radiation power as a result of pulsing or modulating the laser power instead of using continuous power, for the advantage of decreasing the likelihood of hot cracks or deformations that might result in the small component areas at the edges of thin walls or corners (Geisen, paras 0065 and 0077; Abe teaches reducing the output power for the “short sub-irradiation paths,” para 0053).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Abe in view of Geisen as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Geisen teaches wherein the computer-implemented method is a computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) method (para 0085) comprising: defining, with a CAD file (“CAD file,” paras 0085-0086), a geometry of the component (“geometry data of the component 10,” para 0085); reading, into an additive manufacturing facility (fig. 1, “additive manufacturing plant,” para 0046), the CAD file (“manufacturing or production step of a component can be carried out
based on a geometry data set, for example a corresponding CAD file,” para 0005); and dividing, based on the CAD file, the geometry of the component into a plurality of layers (layers S, fig. 1; para 0013) comprising the layer.
Regarding claim 8, Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose a computer program product stored on a tangible computer readable medium, comprising commands which, upon execution of a corresponding program by a computer, cause the computer to implement the defining step of the method in claim 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches a computer program product (“computer program product,” para 0003; “CAD file,” para 0085) stored on a tangible computer readable medium (file that can be uploaded to or downloaded from a “peer-to-peer” network, para 0034), comprising commands (“G-Code,” para 0086) which, upon execution of a corresponding program (“CAD,” para 0086) by a computer (“computer or a data processing device,” para 0036), cause the computer to implement the defining step of the method as claimed in claim 1 (“perform the layer-wise determination of the irradiation pattern as described above,” para 0036; paras 0085-0086 describe the BM pattern that can be represented in a CAD file, where the BM pattern defines the vectors KV1 and KV2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by programming into a CAD file, as taught by Geisen, the division of sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe in fig. 7, in order to generate a CAD file that provides irradiation parameters, which can be uploaded or downloaded in a computer-aided manufacturing process, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired irradiation parameters are set and maintained during radiation (Geisen, paras 0085-0086).
Regarding claim 12, Abe teaches wherein the hatching irradiation vectors (“hatching path,” para 0050) relate to a main portion (portion of powder layer shown in fig. 7 is construed as the claimed “main portion”) of surface of the layer to be irradiated (top surface of layers 24, fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 13, Abe teaches wherein the first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) are matched to a geometry of individual component sections of the component (geometry of layers 24, fig. 1B; each layer is construed as an “individual component section”), wherein the layer (layer in fig. 7) is defined by a first component section of the individual component sections (annotated in fig. 1B; construed such that the pattern shown in fig. 7 is used for each of the layers 24 in fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 14, Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the component is configured to be used in a hot gas path of a turbomachine.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches wherein the component is configured to be used in a hot gas path of a turbomachine (para 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by using the method for manufacturing, as taught by Abe, to manufacture a gas turbine, as taught by Geisen, because additive manufacturing processes have proven to be particularly advantageous for complex, complicated, or intricately designed components, such as gas turbines (Geisen, para 0005).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Abe in view of Geisen as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 15. Specifically, Geisen teaches wherein the turbomachine is a gas turbine and wherein the component is one or more of a rotor blade, a guide blade, a ring segment, a burner part, a burner tip, a shield, a heat shield, a nozzle, a seal, a filter, an orifice or lance, a resonator, a plunger or an agitator (para 0056).
Regarding claim 16, Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 7 embodiment, defining contour irradiation vectors for the layer, wherein the contour irradiation vectors border the hatching irradiation vectors to solidify a border area.
However, in the fig. 10 embodiment, Abe teaches defining contour irradiation vectors (perpendicular paths, annotated in fig. 10 below) for the layer, wherein the contour irradiation vectors border the hatching irradiation vectors (paths with solid black circles, fig. 7) to solidify a border area (“uniform solidified layer as a whole,” para 0062; construed such that the perpendicular paths solidify the areas on the border, fig. 10).
Abe, fig. 10 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
538
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fig. 7 embodiment of Abe, by using perpendicular scanning, as taught in the fig. 10 embodiment of Abe, in order to avoid the occurrence of local raised portions attributed to short paths on the periphery, enabling effective production and quality of a three-dimensional shaped object (Abe, para 0062).
Claims 3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20150183165-A1) in view of Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liebl et al. (US-20170282246-A1) and Kenney et al. (US-20190054533-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Abe teaches defining second irradiation vectors having a length between 1 mm and 2 mm length (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed as lengths for short paths that are between 1 mm and 1.5 mm) for the layer of the component (portion of the powder layer shown in fig. 7).
Abe does not explicitly disclose irradiating, with the energy beam, the layer based on the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the second irradiation vectors comprise a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s (Abe defines “short” paths and “long” paths based on a threshold of 1.5 mm and does not explicitly disclose subdividing the “short” paths into two classification of less than 1 mm and between 1-1.5 mm).
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Liebl teaches irradiating, with the energy beam (beam 12, fig. 4), the layer (component layer 15 n1, fig. 4) based on the second irradiation vectors (inskin regions 20 are construed as regions with hatch distances less than 1.5 mm, fig. 4; annotated in fig. 4 below; Liebl teaches that the power and the velocity are results-effective variables dependent on the hatch distance h, para 0023).
Liebl, fig. 4
PNG
media_image4.png
2581
2509
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Liebl, by adjusting the power and velocity of the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, based on the hatch distance, as taught by Liebl, because the power and velocity are results-effective variables that should be adjusted based on the hatch geometry of the component region, for the advantage of providing a consistent homogenous and uniform material property throughout the component despite different component geometries (Liebl, paras 0004 and 0028-0029), such that it would be obvious to try different power outputs and velocities for hatch distances that are less than 1.5 mm, and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Abe/Liebl do not explicitly disclose a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the second irradiation vectors comprise a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Kenney teaches a pulsed irradiation mode (“pulsed laser energy,” abstract), wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the second irradiation vectors comprise a pulse frequency above 3 kHz (“the pulse frequency is in the range of approximately 20 KHz to 50 KHz,” para 0031) and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s (“200 mm/s to about 400 mm/s,” para 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe/Liebl, in view of the teachings of Kenney, where the power, as taught by Liebl, is adjusted based on the pulse frequency and the scan velocity, as taught by Kenney, for the short sub-irradiation paths less than 1.5 mm, as taught by Abe, because the power is a results-effective variable that is dependent on pulse frequency and scan velocity, and it would be obvious to try pulse frequencies between 20 kHz and 50 kHz and scan velocities between 200 mm/s and 400 mm/s in order to optimize the power to provide the best performance of solidification qualities (Kenney, paras 0030-0032), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Abe in view of Geisen as set forth above regarding claim 1 partially teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically. Abe teaches herein the layer (portion of powder layer shown in fig. 7) comprises a first layer and a second layer of the component (annotated in fig. 1B; construed such that the pattern shown in fig. 7 is used for each of the layers 24 in fig. 1b); wherein the method further comprises: defining second irradiation vectors having a length between 1 mm and 2 mm (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed as lengths for short paths that are between 1 mm and 1.5 mm) for the second layer of the component (annotated in fig. 1B), irradiating, with the energy beam (beam L, fig. 1B), the first layer (annotated in fig. 1B) based on the first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7); irradiating, with the energy beam (beam L, fig. 1B), the second layer (annotated in fig. 1B). Additionally, Geisen teaches the first irradiation vectors in the pulsed irradiation mode (the KV2 vector is pulsed, para 0077).
Abe, fig. 1b (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
468
645
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Abe does not explicitly disclose defining second irradiation vectors; the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s (Abe defines “short” paths and “long” paths based on a threshold of 1.5 mm and does not explicitly disclose subdividing the “short” paths into two classification of less than 1 mm and between 1-1.5 mm).
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Liebl teaches defining second irradiation vectors (inskin regions 20 are construed as regions with hatch distances less than 1.5 mm, fig. 4; annotated in fig. 4; Liebl teaches that the power and the velocity are results-effective variables dependent on the hatch distance h, para 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Liebl, by adjusting the power and velocity of the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, based on the hatch distance, as taught by Liebl, because the power and velocity are results-effective variables that should be adjusted based on the hatch geometry of the component region, for the advantage of providing a consistent homogenous and uniform material property throughout the component despite different component geometries (Liebl, paras 0004 and 0028-0029), such that it would be obvious to try different power outputs and velocities for hatch distances that are less than 1.5 mm, and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Abe/Liebl do not explicitly disclose the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Kenney teaches the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode (“pulsed laser energy,” abstract), wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz (“the pulse frequency is in the range of approximately 20 KHz to 50 KHz,” para 0031) and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s (“200 mm/s to about 400 mm/s,” para 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe/Liebl, in view of the teachings of Kenney, where the power, as taught by Liebl, is adjusted based on the pulse frequency and the scan velocity, as taught by Kenney, for the short sub-irradiation paths less than 1.5 mm, as taught by Abe, because the power is a results-effective variable that is dependent on pulse frequency and scan velocity, and it would be obvious to try pulse frequencies between 20 kHz and 50 kHz and scan velocities between 200 mm/s and 400 mm/s in order to optimize the power to provide the best performance of solidification qualities (Kenney, paras 0030-0032), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 10, Abe teaches wherein the first layer is defined by a first section of the component (the “first layer” in annotated fig. 1B is construed as being a “first section”), wherein the second layer is defined by a second section of the component (the “second layer” in annotated fig. 1B is construed as being a “second section”). Abe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first section is more thin than the second section.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Liebl teaches wherein the first section (top layer 15, fig. 4) is more thin than the second section (bottom layer 15, fig. 4; thickness n2 is more thin than thickness n1, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Liebl, by using layers with different thickness, as taught by Liebel, for the layers 24, as taught by Abe, in order to adjust the thickness of the varying component geometries as a targeted parameterization for an overhang, for the advantage of providing a consistent homogenous and uniform material property throughout the component despite different component geometries (Liebl, paras 0004 and 0028-0029).
Regarding claim 11, Abe teaches wherein the first section is more proximate to a tip of the component than the second section (annotated in fig. 1B).
Abe, fig. 1B (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
468
645
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20150183165-A1) in view of Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pays (WO-2019202263-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the defining step comprises selecting a hatching distance of the first irradiation vectors such that the irradiating step comprises an overlap of corresponding melt pools for directly adjacent irradiation vectors that is between 30% and 50%.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Pays teaches wherein the defining step comprises selecting a hatching distance (L3, fig. 10) of the first irradiation vectors such that the irradiating step comprises an overlap of corresponding melt pools (“weld beads overlapping,” para 0020) for directly adjacent irradiation vectors (“scanning with said laser beam,” para 0020; “displacement vectors,” para 0022) that is between 30% and 50% (“greater than or equal to 40% and less than or equal to 50%,” para 0020).
Pays, fig. 10
PNG
media_image7.png
368
442
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Pays, by overlapping, as taught by Pays, the weld beads of adjacent paths, as taught in fig. 7 of Abe, in order to overlap weld beads in the regions, for the advantage of ensuring sufficient density to obtain a part with good mechanical strength properties (Pays, para 0072).
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20150183165-A1) in view of Geisen (WO-2019179690-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Liebl et al. (US-20170282246-A1), and Kenney et al. (US-20190054533-A1).
Regarding claim 17, Abe teaches a method for powder bed-based additive manufacturing (“Method for manufacturing three-dimensional shaped object,” title; powder bed is shown in figs. 1A-B) of a component (“three-dimensional shaped object,” title) with an energy beam (beam L, fig. 1B), comprising:
defining first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) having a length below 1mm (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed such that below 1 mm is considered a short path) for a first layer and a second layer of the component (annotated in fig. 1B; construed such that the pattern shown in fig. 7 is used for each of the layers 24 in fig. 1b),
defining second irradiation vectors having a length between 1 mm and 2 mm for the second layer of the component (threshold between short and long paths is “1.5 mm,” para 0057; construed as lengths for short paths that are between 1 mm and 1.5 mm),
irradiating, with the energy beam (beam L, fig. 1B), the first layer (annotated in fig. 1B) based on the first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) and
irradiating, with the energy beam, the second layer (annotated in fig. 1B) based on:
the first irradiation vectors; and
the second irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s.
Abe does not explicitly disclose defining second irradiation vectors; first irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency below 3 kHz and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s; the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches first irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode (the KV2 vector is pulsed, para 0077), wherein the pulsed irradiation mode for the first irradiation vectors comprise a pulse frequency below 3 kHz (“between 1 and 50 Hz,” para 0068) and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s (“selected as less than 200 mm/s,” para 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by using the irradiation parameters for the KV2 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the short sub-irradiation paths that are less than 1 mm, as taught by Abe, in order to use vectors that reduce the radiation power as a result of pulsing or modulating the laser power instead of using continuous power, for the advantage of decreasing the likelihood of hot cracks or deformations that might result in the small component areas at the edges of thin walls or corners (Geisen, paras 0065 and 0077; Abe teaches reducing the output power for the “short sub-irradiation paths,” para 0053).
Abe/Geisen do not explicitly disclose defining second irradiation vectors (Abe defines “short” paths and “long” paths based on a threshold of 1.5 mm and does not explicitly disclose subdividing the “short” paths into two classification of less than 1 mm and between 1-1.5 mm); the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Liebl teaches defining second irradiation vectors (inskin regions 20 are construed as regions with hatch distances less than 1.5 mm, fig. 4; annotated in fig. 4; Liebl teaches that the power and the velocity are results-effective variables dependent on the hatch distance h, para 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Liebl, by adjusting the power and velocity of the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe, based on the hatch distance, as taught by Liebl, because the power and velocity are results-effective variables that should be adjusted based on the hatch geometry of the component region, for the advantage of providing a consistent homogenous and uniform material property throughout the component despite different component geometries (Liebl, paras 0004 and 0028-0029), such that it would be obvious to try different power outputs and velocities for hatch distances that are less than 1.5 mm, and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Abe/Geisen/Liebl do not explicitly disclose the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode, wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Kenney teaches the second irradiation vectors in a pulsed irradiation mode (“pulsed laser energy,” abstract), wherein the pulsed irradiation mode comprises a pulse frequency above 3 kHz (“the pulse frequency is in the range of approximately 20 KHz to 50 KHz,” para 0031) and a scanning speed above 250 mm/s (“200 mm/s to about 400 mm/s,” para 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe/Liebl, in view of the teachings of Kenney, where the power, as taught by Liebl, is adjusted based on the pulse frequency and the scan velocity, as taught by Kenney, for the short sub-irradiation paths less than 1.5 mm, as taught by Abe, because the power is a results-effective variable that is dependent on pulse frequency and scan velocity, and it would be obvious to try pulse frequencies between 20 kHz and 50 kHz and scan velocities between 200 mm/s and 400 mm/s in order to optimize the power to provide the best performance of solidification qualities (Kenney, paras 0030-0032), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 18, Abe teaches wherein the first layer is defined by a first section of the component (the “first layer” in annotated fig. 1B is construed as being a “first section”), wherein the second layer is defined by a second section of the component (the “second layer” in annotated fig. 1B is construed as being a “second section”). Abe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first section is more thin than the second section.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Liebl teaches wherein the first section (top layer 15, fig. 4) is more thin than the second section (bottom layer 15, fig. 4; thickness n2 is more thin than thickness n1, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Liebl, by using layers with different thickness, as taught by Liebel, for the layers 24, as taught by Abe, in order to adjust the thickness of the varying component geometries as a targeted parameterization for an overhang, for the advantage of providing a consistent homogenous and uniform material property throughout the component despite different component geometries (Liebl, paras 0004 and 0028-0029).
Regarding claim 19, Abe teaches wherein the first section is more proximate to a tip of the component than the second section (annotated in fig. 1B above).
Regarding claim 20, Abe teaches wherein the first irradiation vectors (short sub-irradiation paths, fig. 7) are hatching irradiation vectors (“hatching path,” para 0050);
wherein the hatching irradiation vectors relate to a main portion (portion of powder layer shown in fig. 7 is construed as the claimed “main portion”) of surface of the first layer to be irradiated (top surface of the construed “first layer” 24, annotated fig. 1B).
Abe does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 7 embodiment, wherein the method further comprises defining contour irradiation vectors for the first layer, wherein the contour irradiation vectors border the hatching irradiation vectors to solidify a border area.
However, in the fig. 10 embodiment, Abe teaches wherein the method further comprises defining contour irradiation vectors (perpendicular paths, annotated in fig. 10 below) for the first layer, wherein the contour irradiation vectors border the hatching irradiation vectors (paths with solid black circles, fig. 7) to solidify a border area (“uniform solidified layer as a whole,” para 0062; construed such that the perpendicular paths solidify the areas on the border, fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fig. 7 embodiment of Abe, by using perpendicular scanning, as taught in the fig. 10 embodiment of Abe, in order to avoid the occurrence of local raised portions attributed to short paths on the periphery, enabling effective production and quality of a three-dimensional shaped object (Abe, para 0062).
Regarding claim 21, Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the component is configured to be used in a hot gas path of a turbomachine; and wherein the turbomachine is a gas turbine and wherein the component is one or more of a rotor blade, a guide blade, a ring segment, a burner part, a burner tip, a shield, a heat shield, a nozzle, a seal, a filter, an orifice or lance, a resonator, a plunger or an agitator.
However, in the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, Geisen teaches wherein the component is configured to be used in a hot gas path of a turbomachine (para 0006); and wherein the turbomachine is a gas turbine and wherein the component is one or more of a rotor blade, a guide blade, a ring segment, a burner part, a burner tip, a shield, a heat shield, a nozzle, a seal, a filter, an orifice or lance, a resonator, a plunger or an agitator (para 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Geisen, by using the method for manufacturing, as taught by Abe, to manufacture a gas turbine, as taught by Geisen, because additive manufacturing processes have proven to be particularly advantageous for complex, complicated, or intricately designed components, such as gas turbines (Geisen, para 0005).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to the Claim Rejection under 35 USC 101
Step 2A, Prong Two
Pages 15-17 of the arguments reference MPEP 2106.04.d.1. The arguments state that because claim 6 is directed to an “improvement,” then as a result, claim 6 is patent eligible. The arguments do not explicitly state what this “improvement” is. The examiner assumes that the “improvement” is the “solution,” described at the top of page 16. This solution is “to use a pulsed irradiation mode of a particular pulse frequency (below 3 kHz) and a particular scanning speed (below 250 mm/s) when the irradiation vector has a length less than 1 mm.”
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because claim 6 does not actually require this improvement or solution. Rather, claim 6 recites: “defining first irradiation parameters having a length below 1 mm for a layer of the component, wherein the first irradiation parameters are for the energy beam in a pulsed irradiation mode and wherein the first irradiation parameters comprise a pulse frequency below 3 kHz and a scanning speed below 250 mm/s.” Instead of claiming an irradiation step with a “pulsed irradiation mode,” claim 6 merely requires “defining first irradiation parameters…for…a pulsed irradiation mode.”
The examiner reviewed MPEP 2106.05.a, which describes how an “improvement to the function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.” The examiner determined based on this guidance from the MPEP that the improvement actually has to be claimed. For example, this section of the MPEP describes how a claim was determined to be patent eligible because “the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” In claim 6 of the Instant Application, the actual irradiation step (i.e., the “specific way” of the improvement or the “particular rules” to carry out the improvement) is not claimed. Instead, claim 6 requires a “defining” step, which is “merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome” and not claiming the actual solution or outcome.
Pages 16-17 describe how the Specification describes a problem of forming thin-walled components and using a solution of irradiating with a pulsed irradiation mode to overcome this problem. The examiner agrees that the Specification describes this problem and solution.
The bottom of page 16 states the following:
”Indeed, the Office Action mischaracterized that ‘Applicant's Specification does not
include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement
realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem
having an unconventional technical solution’ (See: Office Action at p. 6)(emphasis
added).”
The examiner disagrees with this statement. The examiner maintains that the Specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement over the prior art, because there is no discussion of how the claimed “defining first irradiation parameters” overcomes a technical problem. Instead, the Specification describes how irradiating with first irradiation parameters overcomes the technical problem of forming thin-walled components. In other words, this “irradiating” step that is described in the Specification is not part of the “claimed invention.” Therefore, the Applicant's Specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention in claim 6 provides a technical improvement over the prior art.
Response to the Claim Rejection under 35 USC 103
The examiner agrees with the description of Abe (US20150183165A1) on pages 18-19 of the arguments.
The bottom of page 19 suggests that in claims 1-2 of the previous Office action, that a proposed modification was to use a threshold of 1 mm, as taught in the Instant Application, instead of a threshold of 1.5 mm, as taught by Abe.
The examiner disagrees that this modification was proposed for claims 1-2. Instead, based on the threshold of 1.5 mm for short and long paths, as taught by Abe, any paths shorter than 1 mm, would be classified as a “short” path according to the teachings of Abe (based on the 1.5 mm threshold). This teaching is sufficient to meet the limitation: “defining first irradiation vectors having a length below 1 mm,” as required in claim 1. In other words, the scope of claim 1 is broad enough such that the claim does not requiring dividing vectors into “first” vectors and “second” vectors based on a threshold of 1 mm. Although the Applicant’s Specification describes this division of vectors based on a threshold of 1 mm, claim 1 does not require this division of vectors based on a threshold.
Pages 20-21 of the arguments acknowledge that the proposed modification for the 103 rejection of Abe in view of Geisen is to use “the irradiation parameters for the KV2 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe.” However, the arguments then state that using “only the KV2 vectors from Geisen” is not permitted. Instead, the examiner must also used the “KV1 irradiation vector” that is taught by Geisen.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive, i.e., that the examiner must use the parameters for the KV1 irradiation vector, because the argument is conclusory and is not supported by any evidence from Geisen. Although the Applicant references MPEP 2142, alleging that the rejection was based on conclusory statements, respectfully submit that the examiner’s rejection references paragraphs 0065, 0068, and 0076-0077 of Geisen as well as paragraph 0053 of Abe.
Pages 21-22 of the arguments appears to suggest that the proposed modification is to add Geisen’s K2 vectors in addition to the short sub-irradiation paths that are taught by Abe. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Instead, the proposed modification is substitution and not addition. Specifically, the modification is to use “the irradiation parameters for the KV2 vector, as taught by Geisen, for the short sub-irradiation paths, as taught by Abe.”
The examiner disagrees that such a substitution would “increase the power of the light beam” supplied by Abe. Rather, pulsing the beam, as taught by Geisen, instead of using a continuous beam (no pulsing), as taught by Abe, would reduce the radiation power, a quality which Abe teaches as being desirable for the short sub-irradiation paths. This modification and rationale were explained in the rejection that was provided to the Applicant in the previous Office action.
In response to applicant's arguments on page 23 regarding claim 3 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the rejection for claim 3 was based on a combination of Abe, Eisen, Liebl, and Kenney. However, the argument only addresses Abe.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights