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 .
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 3/25/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-13, 16, 18, and 20 are amended; Claim 6 is canceled; Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are currently pending, claim 14 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is amended to recite “wherein in the structural overlap, sides and ends of teeth of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure.” In view of amendment, the term “overlap” may be interpreted such that the structure of the support teeth share at least some of the same physical structure as the thin-walled structure (i.e. comprising a structural/spatial overlap) or whether the support teeth merely contact the thin-walled structure in a recessed area, for example, in tongue-and-groove joint structure (i.e. comprising a connection/interconnection). As the term “overlap” may be interpreted to require that the thin-walled structure and the support teeth share at least a portion of additively manufactured material in which case the particular portion deemed to “overlap” may be arbitrarily assigned depending on the desired dimensions of the respective structures.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 13, 15-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111451503A)(machine translation previously provided) in view of Mojdeh (US 2020/0316856)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Wang teaches a method of additively manufacturing a fine structure (deemed to constitute a “thin-walled structure” as no particular dimensions are claimed) using selective laser melting a powder build material (thus, a conventional additive manufacturing process comprising fusing portions of a powder bed with selective irradiation of a laser), the method comprising steps of additively manufacturing a plurality of support structures comprising separated attachments/teeth for supporting the thin-walled structure on a build plate, thus, constituting “non-continuous support comprising a plurality of teeth for supporting the thin-walled structure.” (pgs. 1-4 of translation; Fig. 1-2).
With respect to the limitation “on a build plate,” one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selective laser melting (SLM) additive manufacturing must be conducted on a surface (i.e. substrate or build plate) whereon the powder rests when it is selectively melted and fused to additively build up an article. Thus, the SLM method of Wang is deemed to comprise, or it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to comprise, establishing the non-continuous support comprising teeth on a build plate, in order to provide support to the article being formed in the appropriate location.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of support structure would comprise non-continuous melt pools generated in the powder bed, both with respect to the plurality of support structures and with respect to the plurality of teeth on each support structure (i.e. wherein additive layers of forming the teeth would comprise non-continuous melt pools as the teeth portions are separated by empty space).
Wang teaches additively establishing the thin-walled structure on the support structures. (pg. 2-5 of translation). Wang is silent as to wherein there exists a structural overlap between the thin-walled structure and the support in a build direction (z) and wherein the in the structural overlap, sides and ends of teeth of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure.
Mojdeh teaches a method of additively manufacturing an article, the method comprising additively establishing a plurality of non-continuous support structures for supporting an additively manufactured article on a build plate, wherein the method may comprise powder bed fusion/SLM additive manufacturing technique, and wherein the support structures may comprise an overlap between the thin-walled structure and the support in a build direction. (para. 91-99, 124, 151-153; Figs. 6-7, 15). In particular, the reference teaches forming “overcure” region “projects past the support mark” and thus, comprises an overlap of the article and the support structures in the z direction. (abstract; para. 7-23). Mojdeh teaches that such overcure regions allow for substantially smooth and/or otherwise desired outer surfaces without the need for additional smoothing process(es). (para. 53-57).
Mojdeh further teaches wherein the support structure (236) is mechanically separated leaving partial support structures (237) that remain on the additively formed article and are not removed. (see Figs. 2J and 2K, para. 85-88). Specifically, Mojdeh teaches “the support marks 237 are indented or recessed from the bottom surface of the overcure region 244…Accordingly, the overcure region (and other overcure regions not shown in this example) may form an outer surface, profile, perimeter and/or edge that projects past the support marks. The outer profile of the 3D object as defined by the overcure regions 244 may have a shape and dimensions that were specified in a virtual 3D model and may be within design tolerances. Accordingly, the support marks may be left on the 3D object without impacting a functionality of the 3D object, without impacting an esthetic of the 3D object, and without causing the 3D object to deviate from its design tolerances.” (para. 88)
PNG
media_image1.png
654
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the support marks (237) are part of the final additively manufactured article, they may be deemed to be both part of the support structure teeth and also part of the article itself, and thus, constitute an overlapping structure of a non-continuous support comprising a plurality of teeth wherein the structural overlap, sides and ends of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wang to perform the steps of additively establishing the support structure and the thin-walled structure (i.e. article), to provide a plurality of support structures comprising teeth having a structural overlap between the additively manufactured article and the support structure(s) in a build direction (z) and wherein in the structural overlap sides and ends of the teeth are in contact with the additively manufactured (thin-walled) structure, as taught by Mojdeh, in order to enable forming an article with a desired outer surface while reducing the need for further processing of the manufactured article.
Alternatively, Mojdeh demonstrates how adjoining additively manufactured structures of an additively formed article such as the “overcure” region (244) may be considered to begin in an overlapping or recessed region of the article, as seen in the Figs. 2J and 2K above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Wang in view of Mojdeh, to form the non-continuous support structures (or to arbitrarily consider them beginning) in a recessed/overlapping region of the article as are the overcure regions (244) of Mojdeh, thereby having a structural overlap in which the sides and ends of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure, in order to form sufficiently strong support connections to the thin-walled article to support it during manufacture and/or subsequent processing steps.
With respect to Claims 4-5 and 15-16, the claims are drawn to the relative distance of overlap and vertical extension, respectively as compared to a layer thickness but does not limit the layer thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method of Wang in view of Mojdeh, comprising SLM layer-by-layer additive manufacturing may be tailored to form articles and corresponding structures ranging from structures formed of a few layers to thousands of layers and where such layer thickness may be adjusted based on the build material, desired processing speed, etc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select reasonable or workable overlap distance “(a)” and vertical extension distance (b), based on the desired thin-walled structure/article and corresponding non-continuous support in order to provide a reasonable amount of structural support while balancing the difficulty of removing the supports and time and material necessary to form such supports. See MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, it is noted that as the prior art teaches a method encompassing the required steps and structures, the selection of a particular size or relative size would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
With respect to Claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an additive manufacturing technique, such as the selective laser melting of Wang in view of Mojdeh comprises forming structure by an energy beam along a path of irradiation and therefore, during a single scan the formed width necessarily is limited by the diameter of the energy beam melting the powder build material. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a single path of irradiation conventionally scans back and forth (e.g. raster) and therefore, a single continuous path may comprise forming may rows of individual “widths” that combine to form the final solidified width of the layer. The claim is not interpreted to limit the overall width of the thin-walled structure nor exclude a rastered single path. Therefore, the method of Wang in view of Mojdeh is deemed to meet the instant limitation.
With respect to Claim 13, Wang and Mojdeh teach wherein the additively manufactured article (thin-walled structure) is mechanically separated from the support. (see rejection of claim 6 above; Wang, pgs. 1, 4-5 of translation).
With respect to Claims 18-19, the claim is drawn to substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above, but differs in that while it refers to additive manufacturing of a powder bed by selective irradiation (as in selective laser melting), it refers to the formed portions of support as formed by stacking a plurality of layers of discrete solidified melt pools formed along a single scanning path of a melting operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that along a single laser irradiation path in a SLM process, some portions are irradiated and some may not be irradiated to melt and fuse the “selective” portions of the powder and thereby form discrete solidified melt pools forming desired structures, including the support and thin-walled article. The support of Wang in view of Mojdeh comprises a plurality of discrete attachment points of support structures and thus, in a single layer, would comprise forming a series of discrete supports additively formed by stacking a plurality of layers of discrete solidified melt pools formed along a single scanning path of a melting operation. Further, such a method would result in the “repeatedly initiates and terminates melting along the single scanning path to form the discrete welds” as required by claim 19. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to initiate and terminate the laser irradiation along a scanning path to form the predetermined features including support and/or article portions as taught by the prior art.
With respect to Claim 20, the method of Wang in view of Mojdeh selectively irradiates a powder to selectively melt predetermined portions of the powder and thus, would comprise terminating irradiation (constituting reducing powder density delivered to the powder to a level that it cannot melt, nor maintain a continuous melt pool) along the single scanning path to form the discrete portions/solidified melt pools of the support. (see also rejection of claims 18-19 above).
With respect to Claim 21, Wang in view of Mojdeh teach a method comprising additively manufacturing a non-continuous support and thin-walled structure, wherein at least a portion of the support structure teeth overlaps with the thin-walled article. (see rejection of claim 1 above). As the method comprises layer-by-layer additive formation of the respective structures, including an overlapping portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method would comprise energy beam parameters applied simultaneously to the overlapping portion(s) and may also comprise consecutive parameters for portions of the thin-walled structure and support that are not overlapping.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111451503A)(machine translation provided in view of Mojdeh (US 2020/0316856), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Jhabvala et al., “An innovative method to build support structures with a pulsed laser in the selective laser melting process,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Springer; Berlin; vol. 59, no. 1-4, pages 137-142 (cited on IDS)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 2, Wang teaches a method comprising selective laser melting additive manufacturing of the support and thin-walled article, but is silent as to whether the method comprises a pulsed irradiation mode for the laser irradiation of the support.
Jhabvala teaches substituting a continuous mode laser irradiation technique in SLM additive manufacturing for a pulsed irradiation mode laser for building a support structure, wherein the resulting support structures have sufficient mechanical properties to provide the necessary strength/support but have the benefit of easier removal. (abstract; p. 137, 140-141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wang in view of Mojdeh to use a pulsed irradiation mode in the SLM manufacturing of the support, as taught by Jhabvala, in order to form support structures having sufficient mechanical properties for their intended purpose and having the benefit of easier removal from the article.
With respect to Claim 3, Wang teaches a method comprising selective laser melting additive manufacturing of the support and thin-walled article comprising non-continuous melt pools, but is silent as to whether the method comprises reduced energy input applied by an energy beam.
As detailed above, Jhabvala teaches substituting a continuous mode laser irradiation technique in SLM additive manufacturing for a pulsed irradiation mode laser for building a support structure, wherein the resulting support structures have sufficient mechanical properties to provide the necessary strength/support but have the benefit of easier removal. (abstract; p. 137, 140-141). Thus, the reference is deemed to teach forming a support structure using a reduced energy input as compared to a continuous irradiation mode and constitute “using an energy beam at a reduced energy input that is insufficient to maintain a continuous melt pool.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wang in view of Mojdeh to use a pulsed irradiation mode in the SLM manufacturing of the support comprising generating non-continuous melt pools and thus, comprising using an energy beam at a reduced energy input that is insufficient to maintain a continuous melt pool, as taught by Jhabvala, in order to form support structures having sufficient mechanical properties for their intended purpose and having the benefit of easier removal from the article.
With respect to Claim 8, Wang teaches a method comprising selective laser melting additive manufacturing of the support and thin-walled article, but is silent as to whether the method comprises a pulsed irradiation mode for the laser irradiation of the thin-walled structure.
Jhabvala teaches substituting a continuous mode laser irradiation technique in SLM additive manufacturing for a pulsed irradiation mode laser for building an additively manufactured structure, wherein the resulting support structures have sufficient mechanical properties. (abstract; p. 137, 140-141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wang in view of Mojdeh to use a pulsed irradiation mode in the SLM manufacturing of the thin-walled structure, as taught by Jhabvala, in order to form an additively manufactured structures having sufficient mechanical properties for their intended purpose while enabling easier post-processing or, for example, easier intentional destruction in the case of a part intended for temporary use.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111451503A)(machine translation provided in view of Mojdeh (US 2020/0316856), as applied to Claim 1 above (with respect to claim 9), in view of Geisen, et al., “Additive manufacturing of honeycomb seal strips,” Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Vol. 51029, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018, 18 June 11-15, Oslo, Norway (cited on IDS)(previously cited).
With respect to Claims 9 and 17, Wang teaches forming a fine article (thin-walled structure) using a selective laser melting additive manufacturing process, a form of powder bed fusion additive manufacturing (see rejection of claim 1 above), but is silent as to wherein the thin-walled structure comprises a honeycomb (as in claim 9) and wherein the structure comprises a honeycomb sealing for an application in a hot gas path of a gas turbine (as in claim 17).
Geisen teaches using powder bed additive manufacturing to form honeycomb seal strips useful for an application in a hot gas path of a gas turbine. (pgs. 1-4). Geisen teaches that honeycomb seal strips having thin walls may be successfully formed by additive manufacturing techniques enabling high precision parts with reduced processing steps. (p. 7).
Thus, Wang and Geisen are both drawn to methods of additive manufacturing using powder bed fusion techniques of structures having thin/fine elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wang in view of Mojdeh, to form a honeycomb seal strip structure having thin-walls, as taught by Geisen, in order to form a thin-walled structure with utility in an application in a hot gas path of a gas turbine. In other words, it would have been obvious to use a method capable of forming a thin-walled structure via additive manufacturing to form a useful article known to be successively formed by a such as process, with a predictable result of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach a method as in claim 1, further comprising forming a reinforcement as part of the non-continuous support, wherein the reinforcement is formed in at least one of interspaces between structure elements of the thin-walled structure and interspaces between structure elements of the support, and in particular, the wherein the reinforcement is free of any structural connection to the thin-walled structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art Mojdeh fails to teach a structural overlap, as required by the amended claim 1, pointing to Fig. 6A to demonstrate that the overlap does not meet the new limitation “wherein in the structural overlap, sides and ends of teeth of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure.” (Remarks, pgs. 10-12). These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant presents a narrow interpretation of the claim and ignores the broader teachings of the Mojdeh reference.
The term “overlap,” as recited in the instant claims, may be interpreted such that the structure of the support teeth share at least some of the same physical structure as the thin-walled structure (i.e. comprising a structural/spatial overlap) or whether the support teeth merely contact the thin-walled structure in a recessed area, for example, in tongue-and-groove joint structure (i.e. comprising a connection/interconnection). As the term “overlap” may be interpreted to require that the thin-walled structure and the support teeth share at least a portion of additively manufactured material in which case the particular portion deemed to “overlap” may be arbitrarily assigned depending on the desired dimensions of the respective structures.
As detailed in the rejection above, Mojdeh teaches wherein the support structure (236) is mechanically separated leaving partial support structures (237) that remain on the additively formed article and are not removed. (see Figs. 2J and 2K, para. 85-88). Specifically, Mojdeh teaches “the support marks 237 are indented or recessed from the bottom surface of the overcure region 244…Accordingly, the overcure region (and other overcure regions not shown in this example) may form an outer surface, profile, perimeter and/or edge that projects past the support marks. The outer profile of the 3D object as defined by the overcure regions 244 may have a shape and dimensions that were specified in a virtual 3D model and may be within design tolerances. Accordingly, the support marks may be left on the 3D object without impacting a functionality of the 3D object, without impacting an esthetic of the 3D object, and without causing the 3D object to deviate from its design tolerances.” (para. 88)
As the support marks (237) are part of the final additively manufactured article, they may be deemed to be both part of the support structure teeth and also part of the article itself, and thus, constitute an overlapping structure of a non-continuous support comprising a plurality of teeth wherein the structural overlap, sides and ends of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure.
Alternatively, Mojdeh demonstrates how adjoining additively manufactured structures of an additively formed article such as the “overcure” region (244) may be considered to begin in an overlapping or recessed region of the article, as seen in the Figs. 2J and 2K above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Wang in view of Mojdeh, to form the non-continuous support structures (or to arbitrarily consider them beginning) in a recessed/overlapping region of the article as are the overcure regions (244) of Mojdeh, thereby having a structural overlap in which the sides and ends of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure, in order to form sufficiently strong support connections to the thin-walled article to support it during manufacture and/or subsequent processing steps.
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 JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights