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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11, directed to an additive manufacturing method, in the reply filed on February 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 and Claim 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, Group II, directed to a facility, and Group III, directed to a metal part, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-15 are pending and Claims 1-11 are currently considered in this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority in application no. FR2103499, filed April 6, 2021, is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1, and dependent Claims 2-11, 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the last layer deposited (n-1)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the layer (n)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear what the claim requires regarding the cooling zone. The claim recites wherein the cooling zone comprises at least 1) one peripheral zone of a last layer (n-1) before the last layer (n) deposited. transversely thereto, 2) a peripheral zone of at least some of the n-1 layers before the last layer (n) deposited, and/or 3) a zone located above a peripheral zone of the last layer (n-1). It is unclear which if the claim requires all 1), 2) and 3) peripheral zones or not. Usage of the phrases “as well as” and “and/or” further causes confusion to what is required by the claim. Examiner interprets that only one of 1), 2) or 3) options above are required to meet the claimed limitations.
Further, Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “one peripheral zone of a last layer (n-1) before the last layer (n) deposited, transversely thereto”. It is unclear what this phrasing means or where this cooling zone is located in regards to the last layer (n). This limitation is interpreted as a cooling zone which includes a peripheral edge of layer (n-1) or the side portion of the component (see para. [0074] and Fig. 3 of instant invention wherein cooler 5 is cooling side portion of component 11 and therefore edge of layer n-1).
Regarding Claim 2, it is also unclear what the difference is between 1) one peripheral zone of “a last layer (n-1)” and 2) a peripheral zone of at least some of “the n-1 layers”. Claim 2 also recites the limitation "the n-1 layers", but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what n-1 layers means, and if there is one n-1 layer or multiple n-1 layers. Further, the language “at least some” is unclear because the amount ‘some’ is not defined, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be certain of the number of layers involved in the amount ‘some’ and it is unclear how many layers are in n-1 layer(s).
Claim 2 recites “n being in particular between 1 and 5”. The usage of ‘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). Examiner interprets the value of n as an optional limitation.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by a plurality of walls forming plates. It is unclear how walls form plates when walls already read on plates. It is unclear if the claim language intends to mean wall-forming plates or plates which form, or are, a wall. Examiner interprets wherein the limitation requires that the cooler is formed of a plurality of plates which may form a wall (see Fig. 3 of instant invention wherein cooler comprises plates 6a-6d).
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "said at least one plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets ‘said at least one plate’ to refer to ‘at least one plate’ from ‘the plurality of walls forming plates’ in Claim 4 from which Claim 5 depends from.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the metal material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the distance between". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the layers in question". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the claim refers to layer (n) or layer (n-1), or both.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the desired temperature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites ‘the, in particular for each, layer or layers’. It is unclear if the claim refers to layer (n) or layer (n-1), or both. Additionally, the usage of ‘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).
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "the layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the claim refers to layer (n) or layer (n-1), or both.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “the first layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “a secondary substrate attached to the substrate and extending in a plane substantially parallel to the plane of the layers which will be deposited and preferably orthogonal to the substrate”. It is unclear if the secondary substrate is orthogonal to the substrate or the plane of the layer which will be deposited is orthogonal to the substrate.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites ‘preferably orthogonal to the substrate”. The usage of ‘preferably’ 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). Examiner interpret that it is not required that the secondary substrate or the plane of the layers which will be deposited be orthogonal to the substrate in order to meet the claim limitations (see 112b rejection above wherein it is unclear which component (secondary substrate or plate of the layers to be deposited) is orthogonal to substrate).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “relative to the latter”. It is unclear what the latter is and if the latter is the substrate. If the latter refers to the substrate, it is unclear what an axis parallel to the substrate relative to the substrate means. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for ‘the latter’ in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipated by Bennett (cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bennett discloses a method for the additive manufacturing of a metal part on a substrate (Abstract; Fig. 1), by adding at least one molten metal, layer by layer (para. [0017]), the method comprising the following steps:
step a: depositing the molten metal layer by layer (para. [0017]; para. [0021]),
step b: simultaneously with step a), cooling, using a cooler that is movable relative to the substrate, a cooling zone located at least around the last layer deposited (n-1) and before the layer (n) is deposited (Fig. 1-2, cooling nozzle 26; Fig. 3; para. [0019]; para. [0023]-[0026], cooling nozzle movable in any position and applied to workpiece during building; see also Fig. 1, cooling applied to previous layer(s) and before currently deposited layer).
Regarding Claim 2, Bennett discloses wherein the cooling zone includes a peripheral edge of the previous layer (n-1) and side portion of the component (Fig. 1), which reads on the claimed limitation of ‘a peripheral zone of the last layer deposited (n-1) before the layer deposited (n), transversely thereto’ and ‘a peripheral zone of at least some of the n-1 layer deposited before the layer being deposited (n)’ (see 112b rejection and claim interpretation above; see also comparison of Fig. 1 of Bennett, wherein cooler cools side portion of component and Fig. 3 of instant invention wherein cooler also cools side portion of component).
Regarding Claim 3, Bennett discloses wherein the cooler is one component, which reads on the claimed limitation ‘one-piece’ (see Fig. 1-2, cooler 26 is a singular nozzle and one component).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Hart (US 20180200790 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bennett discloses a movable cooling source which may cool by forced convection, spray cooling (nozzle), or via material auxiliary to the build (para. [0009]; para. [0023]).
Bennett also discloses an additional cooling plate for cooling the build material, and wherein in a cooling plate provides the ability to vary temperature spatially or temporally, applying different temperature profiles in space and time (para. [0010]; para. [0025]).
Bennett however fails to expressly disclose wherein the cooler comprises a plurality of plates.
Hart teaches a cooler comprising multiple plates which from a wall surrounding the built component wherein the plates cool by forced convection (cooling elements), via material auxiliary (heat sinks) to the build, or further by cooling fluid such as air (Fig. 2, para. [0027], cooling side walls 230, 250 and 270; para. [0020]).
Hart teaches wherein these cooling plates allow for independent cooling paths to create zones within each cooling wall which may be independently controlled (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a cooler comprising multiple cooling plates which are capable of forming a wall surrounding the build, as taught by Hart, for the invention disclosed by Bennett, in order to tailor the cooling of different surface and zones surrounding the build through independently controlled cooling paths and zones within each cooling wall (see teaching by Hart), and the ability to vary the temperature spatially or temporally, applying different temperature profiles in space and time (see teaching by Bennet).
Regarding Claim 5, Hart discloses wherein the distance between at least one cooling plate and the metal material of a deposited layer is adjusted to obtain a desired temperature of the deposited layer (para. [0008], temperature control via vertical cooling structure; para. [0025]; para. [0023] and para. [0027] wherein distances and clearances of cooling plates are adjusted and cooling surfaces move relative to a fixed build surface; see also Abstract, para. [0024] and Fig. 2 of Bennett, wherein moveable cooling system maintains a desired temperature profile, and is moveable about track 32; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate track 32 is curved and therefore adjustable towards or away from component – i.e., distance adjustable; see also para. [0020] and [0027]-[0028], wherein controller controls position of cooler to adjust cooling intensity).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Huang (US 20220226943 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Bennett fails to discloses wherein the layers are deposited in a plane not parallel to the substrate.
Huang teaches a vertically orientated substrate comprising a secondary substrate (support layer) which is perpendicular to the substrate, wherein the workpiece layers are deposited perpendicularly to the substrate and are parallel to the secondary substrate, in order to form a 3D object without dripping or humping (para. [0005]-[0006]; Fig. 1 and Fig. 2C, substrate 10, layers Bw deposited perpendicularly to substrate 10 and parallel secondary substrate 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the substrate configuration and material deposition taught by Huang, including depositing material in a plane which is perpendicular to the substrate and parallel to a support substrate and wherein the support substrate is perpendicular to the substrate, for the invention disclosed by Bennett, in order to prevent humping and dripping (see teaching by Huang above). Depositing material in a plane which is perpendicular to the substrate reads on a plane which is not parallel, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Huang discloses wherein the plane of the layers deposited form an angle substantially orthogonal to the substrate (Fig. 2c, layer Bw is perpendicularly to substrate 13).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang discloses wherein the first layer is deposited on a secondary substrate attached to the substrate and extending in a plane substantially parallel to the plane of the layers which will be deposited (Fig. 2c, layer Bw is deposited on secondary substrate 15 which extends in a plane substantially parallel to layer Bw).
Regarding Claim 9, Bennet discloses wherein the cooler is movable along an axis (X) parallel to the substrate (para. [0027]-[0028], cooler position controlled relative to build (and therefore substrate); Fig. 1, see arrows of component which cooler 26 is mounted, movable along the length of the substrate (left and right) and therefore along an axis parallel to the substrate; Fig. 2, track 32 allows movement in X-direction; see also para. [0023], position controlled by independent motion or robotic system which would capable of multi-directional movement; see 112b rejection above regarding ‘the latter’).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Steinberg (US 20200306860 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Bennett discloses injecting shielding gas using a nozzle into an area comprising the metal component deposition layer during at least a portion of step a) and injecting inert gas using a nozzle to the cooling zone during at least a portion of step a) and step b) (para. [0009]; para. [0023]-[0024]; see Fig. 1 and para. [0007], gas injection for cooling occurs during building in step a) and cooling b); the language ‘some of the implementation’ is interpreted as any amount of implementation).
However, Bennet does not expressly disclose a diffuser or an inerting cell.
Steinberg teaches using inert shielding gas to prevent oxidation of the molten metal which could otherwise create voids, defects or discontinuities (para. [0045]). Steinberg teaches delivering (injecting) the inert shielding gas using a gas diffusing lens (diffuser) in order to create a relatively large area of slow-moving inert shielding gas that displaces oxygen around a portion of the metal component (para. [0046]). Steinberg further teaches using the gas diffusing lens with a bath of the inert shielding gas via a chamber which further surrounds the metal component, which reads on inerting cell (para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have injected an inert gas using a diffuser into an inerting cell which includes all of the metal component being built, as taught by Steinberg, and therefore including the cooling zone of Bennett during at least a portion of steps a) an b) as claimed, in order to ensure oxidation prevention of not only a relatively large area around at least a portion of the metal component but further the entire metal component via the inert cell (bath chamber) (see teaching above b Steinberg).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Mellor (US 20200001398 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Bennett discloses wherein the part is formed by deposition of layers on a first side of the substrate (Fig. 1), but fails to disclose wherein the part is also formed by deposition of layers on a second side of the substrate.
Mellor teaches wherein a substrate comprises multiple sides/surfaces and is rotatable in order to apply material onto each of the multiple surfaces/sides of the substrate as a means to provide a seed shape for the object being built (Fig. 11, para. [0020]; para. [0029]; para. [0045]). While Mellor is directed to melting foil for material deposition, the usage and teaching of the substrate would be compatible with other additive manufacturing systems that use different deposition processes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a part by deposition of layers on a first side and also a second side of a substrate, as taught by Mellor, for the invention disclosed by Bennett, in order to provide a seed shape for the object being built (see teaching above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735