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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 25 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 19 – 23, 26 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartwig et al. US 2020/0057030 (hereinafter Hartwig) in view of PANTELIOU et al. (“DAMPING FACTOR AS AN INDICATOR OF CRACK SEVERITY” from “Journal of Sound and Vibration (2001) 241(2), 235-245”) (hereinafter PANTELIOU).
Regarding claim 16, Hartwig teaches: a method for non-destructively detecting deviating additive manufacturing (AM) process behavior of a 3D printed solid piece (Fig. 1), comprising the steps of:
providing a mechanical impact to the solid piece ([0022] - - introducing vibration excitation);
obtaining a vibrational response of the solid piece to the impact in the frequency domain ([0021]-[0022] - - dynamic response is measured);
extracting a set of eigenfrequencies, and a set of attenuations, from the vibrational response, each of said eigenfrequencies corresponding to a vibrational mode of said solid piece, and each of said attenuations corresponding to an eigenfrequency of said set of eigenfrequencies ([0024] - - frequency response function is computed; frequency represents eigenfrequencies; amplitude indicates attenuations);
obtaining for at least one vibrational mode:
an eigenfrequency shift by comparing one of the set of extracted eigenfrequencies corresponding to said vibrational mode to a reference eigenfrequency value of said vibrational mode and obtaining a porosity value of the solid piece from said eigenfrequency shift ([0023] - - defects include porosity and cracks; [0074] - - peak values occur at shifted frequencies compared with the predetermined response function indicates level of defects; level of defects is a number of porosity value), and
thereby detecting the deviating AM process behavior ([0074] - - detecting defects).
But Hartwig does not explicitly teach:
for said at least one eigenfrequency, computing at least one damping parameter an attenuation corresponding to said eigenfrequency, thereby obtaining a microcrack quantity value of the solid piece,
However, PANTELIOU teaches:
for one eigenfrequency, computing at least one damping parameter an attenuation corresponding to said eigenfrequency, thereby obtaining a microcrack quantity value of the solid piece (Page 241-242, Fig. 4 - - damping factor is plotted against the crack-length ratio),
Hartwig and PANTELIOU are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to defect detection system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hartwig, and incorporating obtaining a crack value using damping parameter, as taught by PANTELIOU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve evaluating defect of cracks, as suggested by PANTELIOU (Page 235, section 1 Introduction).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: the reference eigenfrequency is obtained from an eigenfrequency trajectory ([0024] - - reference FRF measured in a part having known quality).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: the eigenfrequency trajectory is determined via a set of eigenfrequency measurements performed at different moments during a calibration AM process of a calibration piece ([0032] - - test a part in-situ at any time during the build process, e.g. at discrete points in the build process; [0025] - - per-establish threshold by measuring a reference specimen; this is calibration).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: the extracted eigenfrequencies correspond to vibrational modes of the solid piece, the vibrational modes comprising any or any combination of a flexional mode, a torsional mode, a longitudinal vibration mode, or any harmonics thereof, including the 1st, 2nd, 3rd harmonic, the 1st harmonic of the flexional mode, the 2nd harmonic of the flexional mode, the 1st harmonic of the torsional mode, the 2nd harmonic of the torsional mode, the 1st harmonic of the longitudinal vibrational mode ([0047] - - vibrations occur at one or more frequencies [0006] - - peak in a frequency spectrum indicates harmonics).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: the vibrational response is obtained by an acoustic sensor ([0022] - - acoustic transducer).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: is applied during an additive manufacturing process for 3D printing the solid piece ([0032] - - test part in-situ at any time during the building process).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: a calibration method for calibrating a 3D printing apparatus ([0025] - - per-establish threshold by measuring a reference specimen; this is calibration), comprising the steps of:
a) forming a set of solid pieces on a printing plate by 3D printing (Fig. 1 - - 3D printing);
b) detecting deviating process behavior in any of the solid pieces using a method according to claim 16, thereby obtaining positional information of said deviating process behavior ([0032] - - test at discrete points in the build process);
c) calibrating the 3D printing apparatus taking into account the positional information of the deviating process behavior on the 3D printing apparatus ([0025] - - per-establish threshold by measuring a reference specimen; this is calibration).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: the calibration method is performed multiple times during forming of the set of solid pieces, the calibration method being performed at different heights of the solid pieces ([0032] - - test at discrete points in the build process).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: method is performed in the 3D printing apparatus (Fig. 1, [0022] - - introduce excitation to the build platform).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: the set of at least one solid piece comprises a production piece and a set of calibration pieces, wherein a calibration method is applied to the set of calibration pieces ([0023] - - part produced; [0025] - - per-establish threshold by measuring a reference specimen; reference specimens are calibration pieces).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hartwig further teaches: performing the calibration method according to claim 23 on a set of at least one solid piece at multiple measurement events during forming of the solid piece ([0032] - - test at discrete points in the build process), wherein the reference eigenfrequency value at each measurement event is a predefined target reference eigenfrequency for said measurement event ([0025] - - per-establish threshold by measuring a reference specimen), and wherein processing parameters of the 3D printing apparatus are steered on the basis of the eigenfrequency shift ([0074] - - the parameters of the AM build process are adjusted to reduce the differences which including frequency shift).
Regarding claim 30, Hartwig teaches: a system for non-destructively detecting deviating additive manufacturing (AM) process behaviour of a 3D printed solid piece (Fig. 1), comprising:
a mechanical impactor for providing an impact to a solid piece ([0022] - - introducing vibration excitation);
a sensor for obtaining a vibrational response of the solid piece to the impact ([0021]-[0022] - - dynamic response is measured by accelerometer, acoustic or ultrasonic transducer);
processing means configured to:
compute the vibrational response in the frequency domain ([0024] - - compute frequency response function);
extracting a set of eigenfrequencies and a set of attenuations, from the vibrational response, each of said eigenfrequencies corresponding to a vibrational mode of said solid piece, and each of said attenuations corresponding to an eigenfrequency of said set of eigenfrequencies ([0024] - - frequency response function is computed; frequency represents eigenfrequencies; amplitude indicates attenuations);
obtaining for at least one vibrational mode: an eigenfrequency shift by comparing one of the set of extracted eigenfrequencies corresponding to said vibrational mode to a reference eigenfrequency value of said vibrational mode and obtaining a porosity value of the solid piece from said eigenfrequency shift ([0023] - - defects include porosity and cracks; [0074] - - peak values occur at shifted frequencies compared with the predetermined response function indicates level of defects; level of defects is a number of porosity value), and
thereby detecting the deviating AM process behavior ([0074] - - detecting defects).
But Hartwig does not explicitly teach:
for at least one eigenfrequency, computing at least one damping parameter from an attenuation corresponding to said eigenfrequency, thereby obtaining a microcrack quantity value of the solid piece,
However, PANTELIOU teaches:
for at least one eigenfrequency, computing at least one damping parameter from an attenuation corresponding to said eigenfrequency, thereby obtaining a microcrack quantity value of the solid piece (Page 241-242, Fig. 4 - - damping factor is plotted against the crack-length ratio),
Hartwig and PANTELIOU are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to defect detection system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Hartwig, and incorporating obtaining a crack value using damping parameter, as taught by PANTELIOU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve evaluating defect of cracks, as suggested by PANTELIOU (Page 235, section 1 Introduction).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartwig et al. US 2020/0057030 (hereinafter Hartwig) in view of PANTELIOU et al. (“DAMPING FACTOR AS AN INDICATOR OF CRACK SEVERITY” from “Journal of Sound and Vibration (2001) 241(2), 235-245”) (hereinafter PANTELIOU) and further in view of Xu et al. US 2017/0028703 (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU does not explicitly teach: the eigenfrequency trajectory describes the eigenfrequency of a solid piece with a determined cross section, in function of a height of the solid piece.
However, PANTELIOU teaches: the eigenfrequency trajectory describes the eigenfrequency of a solid piece with a determined cross section, in function of a height of the solid piece ([0015] - - an archive of reference resonant frequencies corresponding to optimal states of reference workpiece at the various stages of its fabrication; [0018] - - a stage can be a number of layers deposited or a thickness of workpiece; this is height of the workpiece).
Hartwig, PANTELIOU and Xu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to defect detection system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Hartwig and PANTELIOU, and incorporating frequencies in function of a height of a workpiece, as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to limit waste, as suggested by Xu ([0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116