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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 5/26/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 18 are amended; Claims 19-20 are canceled; Claims 22-23 are newly added. Claims 1-5 and 7-18, and 21-23 are currently pending, claim 14 is withdrawn.
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 1-5 and 7-13, 15-17, 21, and 23 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein each tooth is configured such that when the remainder of the tooth is separated from the embedded portion of the tooth the embedded portion sits flush with a surface of the thin-walled structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion.” The instant specification and claims, as originally filed, do not support this limitation.
Applicant’s remarks, filed 5/26/2026, point to Figures 2 and 6 to support a "flush" surface limitation. While Fig. 6 demonstrates a dashed separation line, the figure and corresponding specification do not indicate that this is the same line as appearing in Fig. 2. Rather, the line in Fig. 2 marks the end of the thin-walled structure so that an embedded portion distance "a" may be measured and does not clearly set forth that the separation occurs at this line. In contrast, the specification states “On the other hand, said connection may preferably be easily removed after the manufacturing/buildup of the thin-walled structure 11 is completed.” (para. 57 of PG Pub.). Thus, the specification indicates that at least a portion of the tooth/connection remains attached to the thin-walled structure and is not flush with adjacent surface(s).
More importantly, even if the separation lines are interpreted as referring to the same line, the specification does not contain support for a resulting flush surface and separation at this line does not necessarily imply a flush surface after separation. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize (as demonstrated by Mojdeh) that separation at such a line may result in recessed or protruding surface features wherein the surface is not completely "flush" or smooth. As a result, the above-recited limitation lacks support in the specification as originally filed and is considered new matter. Claims 2-5 and 7-13, 15-17, 21, and 23 are rejected based on their dependency.
In addition, Claim 23, reciting “wherein the embedded portion of the tooth and the surface of the thin-walled structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion together form an uninterrupted surface of the thin-walled structure.” This limitation lacks support in the specification as originally filed and is considered new matter for substantially the same reasons as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 7-13, 15-17, 21, and 23 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 1 has been amended to recite “wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprises an embedded portion in the structural overlap and a remainder.” It is unclear how the term “embedded” further modifies the required “structural overlap.” First, it is noted that the instant specification does not specifically recite the term “embed” or “embedded.” Therefore, the term is only supported to the extent that the structural overlap, as supported by the specification/figures is interpreted to represent an embedded structure. Second, the limitation “structural overlap” may be interpreted as requiring that the thin-walled structure and non-continuous support are formed of the same structure/material. As a result, it is unclear how the support(s) could be embedded in the thin-walled structure while also sharing structural overlap. Claims 2-5 and 7-13, 15-17, 21, and 23 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the embedded portion of the tooth and the surface of the thin-walled structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion together form an uninterrupted surface of the thin-walled structure.” The limitation requires an uninterrupted surface between the thin-walled structure the embedded portion, and thus, ignores the support structure. It is unclear how an uninterrupted surface may exist with the embedded portion as it necessarily lies separated from the surface by the non-continuous support.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is amended to delete “wherein in the structural overlap, sides and ends of teeth of the plurality of teeth are in contact with the thin-walled structure” and add “wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprises an embedded portion in the structural overlap and a remainder.” In view of amendment, the terms “overlap” and “embedded” 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 terms “overlap” and “embedded” 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” and be “embedded” 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, 13, 15-16, 21, and 23 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 along a build direction (z) and wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprises an embedded portion in the structural overlap and a remainder.
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 a structural overlap between the thin-walled structure and the support in a build direction (z direction) and thus, may be considered embedded in the structure. (para. 7-23, 53-57, 88-99, 124, 151-153; Figs. 6-7, 15).
Furthermore, such support structures are configured such that when the remainder of the tooth/support is separated from the embedded portion of the tooth (e.g. removing and/or further machining) the embedded portion may sit flush with a surface of the structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion. Specifically, Mojdeh teaches in [0088], "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. In embodiments, an outer profile (e.g., bottom profile) of the 3D object that corresponds to the overcure region is substantially smooth. In embodiments, the outer profile of the 3D object defined by the overcure region or regions is at least one of substantially level, substantially flat, substantially even, substantially straight or substantially curved." (emphasis added).
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 support structure to prevent unwanted deformation or sagging while also allowing a smooth outer surface after support structure removal.
Furthermore, as Wang teaches a method of making a thin-walled structure having smooth/flush outer surface (see figs. 1-2), it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Wang and of Mojdeh, to configure the plurality of teeth such that when the remainder of the tooth is separated from the embedded portion of the tooth (e.g. removing and/or further machining) the embedded portion may sit flush with a surface of the structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion.
Additionally, 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/embedded region of the article, as seen in the Figs. 2J and 2K. 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 an embedded/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 13, Wang and Mojdeh teach wherein the additively manufactured article (thin-walled structure) is mechanically separated from the support. (see rejection of claim 1 above; Wang, pgs. 1, 4-5 of translation; Mojdeh, para. 87-88).
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.
With respect to Claim 23, Wang in view of Mojdeh teach a method wherein the embedded portion of the tooth and surface of the thin-walled structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion together may form a smooth/flush surface, and thus “uninterrupted” surface of the thin-walled structure. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the non-continuous support in a pattern matching the honeycomb pattern of the thin-walled structure in order to provide relevant and adequate support for manufacturing the structure.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 13, 15-16, 18, 21, and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeth (US 2021/0039322) in view of Mojdeh (US 2020/0316856)(previously cited).
With respect to Claims 1, 7 and 18, Goeth teaches a method of additive manufacturing an object comprising selective sintering of successive powder layers (i.e. powder bed) on a build plate using selective irradiation of an energy beam, wherein the method comprises forming walls having an overall thickness that may be determined by the beam diameter of a single scan of the energy beam. (para. 2, 57-59, 64, 106, 125-129). Thus, Goeth teaches a method of additively manufacturing a thin-walled structure out of a powder bed by selective irradiation, the method comprising additively establishing the thin walled structure on a build plate, wherein an overall width of additively manufactured structures may be established via a diameter of an energy beam during a single path irradiation scan.
Goeth further teaches wherein the method comprises additively manufacturing support structures to support the thin-walled structure/object. (para. 128-129). Goeth is silent as wherein the support structure is a non-continuous support structure as required by claim 18.
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 a plurality of non-continuous support structures (thus, comprising teeth) and wherein a structural overlap between the additively manufactured object/structure and the support in a build direction (z direction) and thus, may be considered embedded in the structure. (para. 7-23, 53-57, 88-99, 124, 151-153; Figs. 2, 6-7, 15).
Furthermore, such support structures are configured such that when the remainder of the tooth/support is separated from the embedded portion of the tooth (e.g. removing and/or further machining) the embedded portion may sit flush with a surface of the structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion. Specifically, Mojdeh teaches in [0088], "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. In embodiments, an outer profile (e.g., bottom profile) of the 3D object that corresponds to the overcure region is substantially smooth. In embodiments, the outer profile of the 3D object defined by the overcure region or regions is at least one of substantially level, substantially flat, substantially even, substantially straight or substantially curved." (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Goeth to perform the steps of additively establishing the support structure and the thin-walled structure (i.e. article), to provide a plurality of non-continuous 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 support structure to prevent unwanted deformation or sagging while also allowing a smooth outer surface after support structure removal. It would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Goeth and of Mojdeh, to configure the plurality of teeth such that when the remainder of the tooth is separated from the embedded portion of the tooth (e.g. removing and/or further machining) the embedded portion may sit flush with a surface of the structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion.
Furthermore, as Goeth teaches additively manufacturing structures (and thus, the thin-walled structure and support structure) having a thickness determined by the width of a single scan of an energy beam width, it would have been obvious to form the thin-walled structure and/or the support structures with such a width, in order to form a fine structure for an intended application and sufficient support for such a structure.
Additionally, 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 embedded region of the article, as seen in the Figs. 2J and 2K. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Goeth in view of Mojdeh, to form the non-continuous support structures (or to arbitrarily consider them beginning) in an embedded/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 2 and 8, Goeth teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising a pulsed laser (i.e. laser having a pulsed irradiation mode). (para. 64). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the thin-walled structure and/or the support structure(s) with a pulsed irradiation mode laser, in order to carry out the method of Goeth in view of Mojdeh.
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 Goeth 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 13, Goeth and Mojdeh teach wherein the additively manufactured article (thin-walled structure) is mechanically separated from the support. (see rejection of claim 1 above; Mojdeh, para. 87-88).
With respect specifically to Claim 18, the claim is drawn to substantially overlapping limitations as claim 1 above, but differs, in part, 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 Goeth 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. 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 21, Goeth 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.
With respect to Claim 23, Goeth in view of Mohdeh teach a method wherein the embedded portion of the tooth and surface of the thin-walled structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion together may form a smooth/flush surface, and thus “uninterrupted” surface of the thin-walled structure. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeth (US 2021/0039322) in view of Mojdeh (US 2020/0316856)(previously cited) 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 3, Geoth teaches a method comprising additive manufacturing with a pulsed irradiation mode (see rejection of claims 2 and 8 above); but is silent as to whether the method comprises reduced energy input applied by an energy beam.
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 Goeth 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeth (US 2021/0039322) in view of Mojdeh (US 2020/0316856)(previously cited), 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, Goeth teaches forming a thin-walled article using a selective laser sintering/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, Goeth 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 Goeth 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. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the non-continuous support in a pattern matching the honeycomb pattern of the thin-walled structure in order to provide relevant and adequate support for manufacturing the structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach a method of additive manufacturing a thin-walled structure as recited in Claim 22, in particular, wherein the method comprises forming a reinforcement as part of a 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 wherein the reinforcement is free of any structural connection to the thin-walled structure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant did not file additional arguments with the request for continued examination, filed 6/13/2026. Therefore, a partially revised response based on the response contained in the Advisory Action of 6/5/2026 is provided below.
Applicant's arguments, filed 5/26/2026, have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
The claims have been amended to recite in claim 1, "wherein each tooth is configured such that when the remainder of the tooth is separated from the embedded portion of the tooth the embedded portion sits flush with a surface of the thin-walled structure immediately adjacent the embedded portion." Applicant argues that prior art Mojdeh teaches support marks that are not flush and therefore, does not anticipate the instant claims. (remarks, pgs. 13-14). These arguments are not found persuasive.
It is noted that an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 was not made in the Final Office Action. Furthermore, while Mojdeh teaches embodiments with support marks that are recessed or protruding from the surface after a separation step, and therefore, may be considered to not sit flush with the adjacent structure, the reference teaches alternative embodiments that do form a flush surface after separation.
Mojdeh teaches in [0088], "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. In embodiments, an outer profile (e.g., bottom profile) of the 3D object that corresponds to the overcure region is substantially smooth. In embodiments, the outer profile of the 3D object defined by the overcure region or regions is at least one of substantially level, substantially flat, substantially even, substantially straight or substantially curved." (emphasis added).
This passage is interpreted such that Mojdeh teaches wherein overcure regions forming at least portions of the noted support marks "may be left" on the structure or alternatively, the exterior surface of overcure region and the adjacent region of the additively manfuactaured structure may be flat or smooth and thus, flush.
The rejection of claims 7 and 18 over Wang in view of Mojdeh are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. However, after further consideration new grounds of rejection over Goeth in view of Mojdeh are made, as detailed above.
Conclusion
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