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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerl et al. (CN 112334294-A, cited in IDS, hereafter “Kerl”) in view of Buller et al. (US 9254535, hereafter “Buller”). US 2021/0252601 is taken to be English-equivalent of the CN document and portions cited below refer to the US publication for the sake of convenience.
Regarding claim 1, Kerl discloses a method for controlling an irradiation beam for irradiating a layer of raw material powder in an additive layer manufacturing process for producing a three-dimensional work piece (figs. 1-4, abstract, [0001-0002]), wherein the method comprises: depositing, with a layer depositing mechanism 16 (coater - fig. 1, [0097]), a layer of raw powder material 15 to form a powder bed 8 on top of a carrier/platform 11/12 (fig. 1; [0087-0088, 0090]); applying the irradiation beam 22/22’ by energy source 21 (fig. 1, [0099]); and controlling the irradiation beam to irradiate at least a portion of the layer of raw material powder in an irradiation area wherein a distance between the irradiation area and the layer depositing mechanism is above a threshold distance (fig. 1); wherein a gas flows (from gas inlets 31-32- [0102]) over the layer of raw powder material in a first direction (x-direction) parallel to a plane (xy-plane) defined by the carrier/platform 12 having a build area 8 (fig. 2), wherein the layer depositing mechanism 16 is configured to move in a second direction (y-direction) perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the second direction is also parallel to the plane (xy-plane) defined by the carrier (fig. 2)
Kerl is silent concerning the irradiation beam area and threshold distance based on the layer depositing mechanism speed & gas flow. However, such relationship is recognized in the art. Buller is also drawn to a method for controlling an irradiation beam for irradiating a layer of raw material powder in an additive layer manufacturing process for producing a three-dimensional work piece (figs. 1-3, 9, 22-24). Buller discloses a layer depositing mechanism 105 (fig. 1; col. 58, lines 10-25) or 905 (fig. 9) depositing a layer of raw material powder to form a powder bed 101 on top of a carrier 102 (fig. 1; col. 57, lines 10-20) or 904 (fig. 9); and applying the irradiation beam by energy source 106/107 & controlling the irradiation beam (figs. 1, 9). Buller teaches that the energy beam is movably translatable and can be incident on a specified area of the powder bed for a specified time period (col. 68, lines 46-65). The powder depositing mechanism also provides gas flow over a plane defined by the carrier (see fig. 27; col. 78, lines 40-55; col. 79, lines 26-35), wherein a controller controls the speed of lateral movement of the powder depositing mechanism and gas speed, as well as gap between the depositing mechanism and powder bed (col. 80, lines 17-35). Buller further teaches that the controller is programmed to determine the time that energy beam is incident on an area of a determined size in order to provide uniform energy per unit area and necessary powder density (col. 128, lines 45-52). In this manner, Buller’s teachings takes into account both movement of the powder depositing mechanism and the speed of gas flow with regard to the irradiation beam area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust a distance between the irradiation area and the depositing mechanism considering movement/speed of the depositing mechanism and gas flow speed in the method of Kerl with a motivation to provide uniform energy per unit area of determined size and necessary powder density, as suggested by Buller. Examiner also notes this claim is open to any distance and speed, not limited by particular range(s).
As to claim 2, Kerl as modified by Buller above discloses controlling the movement of the layer depositing mechanism, wherein a threshold distance is maintained while the layer depositing mechanism moves across the carrier (Kerl- fig. 1).
As to claim 5, Kerl intrinsically discloses that the irradiation area excludes an area on the layer of raw material powder which is closer to the layer depositing mechanism than the threshold distance when the layer depositing mechanism moves parallel to the carrier. Claim 1 defines “irradiation area” being above a threshold distance and thus, this claim appears to be redundant.
As to claim 6, Kerl intrinsically discloses that the threshold distance is determined by shape of the layer depositing mechanism since the distance is measured from boundary surface of the layer depositing mechanism.
As to claims 7-8 and 14, Buller teaches controlling the gas flow as well as direction of the gas flow (col. 80, lines 17-30); the gas flow is chosen such that gas blown onto the substrate does not disturb a powder layer on the substrate or the three-dimensional object (col. 100, lines 33-39). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a suitable gas flow speed, including between 1-2 m/s, in the method of Kerl & Buller such that gas flow does not disturb a powder layer on the carrier or the three-dimensional object. Buller encompasses that gas flow speed, vg, is in a volume within a threshold height from the layer depositing mechanism.
As to claim 11, Kerl shows that the layer depositing mechanism 16 (coater) has a rectangular shape from a cross-sectional point of view perpendicular to a plane of the carrier 11/12 (fig. 1). Kerl also discloses that the irradiation area excludes a region on a side of the depositing mechanism 16 (fig. 1). It is noted that broad term “region” is open to any area/portion and not limited by any shape or size.
As to claims 12-13, Kerl shows that excluded region has a “substantially triangular shape” and a side of the irradiation area defined by a hypotenuse of a triangular shape (see fig. 1 diagram below). Buller also teaches controlling the irradiation beam on desired area on the powder bed and consequently, this
PNG
media_image1.png
636
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
procedure encompasses excluding a region of any shape, including “substantially triangular shape”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to exclude a triangular-shape region in the method of Kerl & Buller in order to scan selective region on the powder bed and exclude other region with a motivation of building the desired shape of the 3D object being built.
As to claim 15, Buller discloses that the irradiation of the layer of raw material powder is controlled to commence in an area in which the layer depositing mechanism started deposited the layer of raw material powder and this is natural since the objective is to sinter o melt the raw material powder.
As to claim 16, Buller teaches that the direction the gas flow can coincide with the direction of movement of the powder dispensing mechanism, not coincide or flow opposite thereto (fig. 27; col. 79, lines 29-34). Accordingly, there is only a finite number of predictable options to commence the irradiation with regard to gas flow: commence in a direction of the gas flow, in a direction against a gas flow, or in a direction perpendicular to the gas flow. The objective is to ensure that irradiation beam reaches specified area on the powder bed. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (see MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
As to claim 18, Buller shows that the irradiation beam is controlled to irradiate an area towards which the layer depositing mechanism moves in a plane (horizontal plane) in which the carrier extend (figs. 1, 9). It is noted that second irradiation beam is optional due to “or”.
As to claim 19, since Buller teaches controlling the irradiation beam on desired area on the powder bed, this procedure encompasses area towards which the layer depositing mechanism moves in the plane is changed during irradiation to be at a predefined safety distance from the layer depositing mechanism. It is noted that any distance meets predefined distance.
Regarding claims 20-22, examiner notes they are merely directed to utilizing a computer system comprising a processor and operatively coupled memory configured to store and execute program code/product for performing the method of claim 1. Rejection of method claim 1 above is incorporated herein. Buller teaches computer system 801 comprising processor(s) and operatively coupled memory configured to store and execute program code/software for performing the additive manufacturing method (fig. 8; col. 133, line 62 thru col. 134, line 33). Examiner notes that merely carrying out known method using a computer program is within ordinary capabilities of an artisan and is not considered novel or inventive. Broadly claiming an automated means (computer program and device) to replace manual function(s) to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143.Therefore, the claims are rendered obvious in the combination of Kerl & Buller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered and are found persuasive to overcome the 112 rejection(s) of claims 3-4 & 11-14 from previous office action. Concerning prior art, Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above, now including newly cited reference of Kerl (CN 112334294-A), which is same as US publication 2021/0252601 A1.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 2/17/26 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights