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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “pre-ceding” material appears to be typo and should recite: preceding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 9 and 11-14 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.
With respect to claim 3, features “wherein the gas flow flows in a first direction parallel to a plane defined by the carrier, wherein the layer depositing mechanism is configured to move in a second direction which is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the second direction is parallel to the plane defined by the carrier” are ambiguous because the first and second directions are conflicting. The claim requires both first and second directions being parallel to the plane (horizontal plane) defined by the carrier, while at the same time, it states that second direction is perpendicular to the first direction - this is contradictory. Based on fig. 2 and its description, the depositing mechanism 118 is moving in a second direction 204 (horizontal direction- fig. 2a), which is parallel to the first direction. The recited conflicting language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claims 3-4 are taken to mean: wherein the gas flow flows in a first direction parallel to a plane defined by the carrier, wherein the layer depositing mechanism is configured to move in a second direction which is also parallel to the plane defined by the carrier.
With respect to claim 9, limitations “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…excluded area is proportional” are ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by excluded area? The phrase “the irradiation area” implicitly includes area which receives irradiation and consequently, it is confusing how it excludes area? Previous claim 1 defines “irradiation area” being above a threshold distance and thus, this claim appears to be redundant. The recited vague and inconsistent language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: the irradiation area is above a threshold distance.
With respect to claim 11, limitation “wherein the irradiation area excludes a region on a side of the layer depositing mechanism which is opposite to a direction of movement of the layer depositing mechanism in the plane” is ambiguous because it unclear what is meant by excluded region and opposite side? The phrase “irradiation area” implicitly includes region which receives irradiation and consequently, it is confusing how it excludes a region? The recited vague and inconsistent language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: wherein the layer depositing mechanism has a rectangular or substantially rectangular shape.
As to claims 12-13, features “the region” (referring to claim 11) and “formed by the side of the layer depositing mechanism which is opposite to the direction of movement of the layer depositing mechanism in the plane” are ambiguous in scope since the side is not clear, in addition to reasons stated in claim 11 above. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: a side of the irradiation area is defined by a hypotenuse of a triangular shape.
With respect to claim 14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purpose of examination, the claim is taken to mean: particular features are optional.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 9254535, hereafter “Buller”).
Regarding claim 1, Buller 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. 1-3, 9, 22-24), wherein the method comprises: depositing, with a layer depositing mechanism 105 (fig. 1; col. 58, lines 10-25) or 905 (fig. 9), 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); applying the irradiation beam by energy source 106/107 (figs. 1, 9); 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 not too close and above a threshold distance (figs. 1, 9).
Concerning the irradiation beam area and threshold distance based on gas flow, 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. 64, lines 46-60). The powder depositing mechanism also provides gas flow in a direction parallel to 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 regards 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 of the depositing mechanism and gas flow speed 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 numerical range(s).
As to claim 2, Buller discloses controlling the movement of the layer depositing mechanism, wherein a threshold distance is maintained while the layer depositing mechanism moves across the carrier (fig. 1).
As to claims 3-4, Buller discloses that the gas flow flows in a first direction parallel to a plane defined by the carrier (fig. 27), wherein the layer depositing mechanism 105/905 is configured to move in a second direction which is also parallel to the plane defined by the carrier (horizontal plane). It is noted these claims are indefinite.
As to claim 5, Buller 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, Buller 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, 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 9, Buller discloses the irradiation area being above a threshold as explained in claim 1 above.
As to claim 11, Buller shows that the layer depositing mechanism 905 has a rectangular shape from a cross- sectional point of view perpendicular to a plane of the carrier (fig. 9).
As to claims 12-13, since Buller teaches controlling the irradiation beam on desired area on the powder bed, this procedure encompasses a side of the irradiation area being defined by a hypotenuse of a triangular shape.
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). Therefore, the claims are rendered obvious by teachings of Buller.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/24, 9/15/23 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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