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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-13 and 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1, 5 – 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courter et al. US 2018/0370155 (hereinafter Courter) in view of COECK et al. US 2021/0086440 (hereinafter COECK), Abbatiello US 2022/0266533 (hereinafter Abbatiello) and Ho et al. US 2017/0225397 (hereinafter Ho).
Regarding claim 1, Courter teaches: a process for improving precision in additive manufacturing processes, the process comprising:
additively manufacturing a part and an erodible support structure (Fig.17 - - print part and porous support material);
wherein the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: cross-hatch spacing, rotation amount, and fill pattern (Fig. 9 shows object and support structure use different cross-hatch spacing and fill pattern; Fig. 11 shows object and support structure use different rotation amount); and
removing the erodible support structure from the part ([0087] - - remove the support material using an aqueous-based solution);
wherein the erodible support structure is configured to mechanically support the part during the additive manufacturing ([0001] - - support structures to support a part built in a layer wise additive process),
the erodible support structure has a high porosity such that under the high porosity condition the erodible support structure is erodible ([0024] - - design the support structure to have high porosity to increase the disintegration rate).
But Courter does not explicitly teach:
the erodible support structure has a porosity greater than 10% such that under the porosity greater than 10% condition the erodible support structure is erodible.
However, COECK teaches: the erodible support structure has a porosity greater than 10% such that under the porosity greater than 10% condition the erodible support structure is erodible ([0017], [0041] - - the lower density portion is more than 20% porosity).
Courter and COECK are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 process, as taught by Courter, and incorporating greater than 10% porosity, as taught by COECK.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to remove an object from build plate easily, as suggested by COECK ([0041]).
But the combination of Courter and COECK does not explicitly teach:
the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: scan speed, laser power, layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size.
However, Abbatiello teaches: the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: scan speed, laser power, layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size, ([0054] - - different scanning speed, energy introduced per unit area for support structure and object).
Courter, COECK and Abbatiello are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 process, as taught by the combination of Courter and COECK, and incorporating using different scan speed and power for object and support structure, as taught by Abbatiello.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve producing support structure, as suggested by Abbatiello ([0007]).
But the combination of Courter, COECK and Abbatiello does not explicitly teach:
the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size.
However, Ho teaches: the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size, ([0056] - - the layer height of the supporting object slices are different to the layer height of the molded object slice).
Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 process, as taught by the combination of Courter, COECK and Abbatiello, and incorporating using different layer thickness for object and support structure, as taught by Ho.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve effectively save the printing time and the usage amount of supplies, as suggested by Ho ([0028]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Courter further teaches: the erodible support structure is deposited such that it at least partially envelopes the part (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
COECK further teaches: the erodible support and the part are made of a common material ([0041] - - the pillar’s upper portion and lower portion are made of same material).
Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Courter further teaches: the porosity of the erodible support is achieved by varying the at least one process parameters ([0095] - - the porosity is achieved by varying fill pattern).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
COECK further teaches: the erodible support structure has a porosity greater than around 20% ([0017] - - the lower portion can have porosity of more than 20 percent).
Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
COECK further teaches: the erodible support structure has a porosity greater than around 35% ([0017] - - the lower portion can have porosity of more than 30 percent).
Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Courter further teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by chemical means ([0087] - - remove the support material using an aqueous-based solution).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Courter further teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by corroding away at least a portion of the erodible support structure ([0087] - - remove the support material using an aqueous-based solution).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courter et al. US 2018/0370155 (hereinafter Courter) in view of COECK et al. US 2021/0086440 (hereinafter COECK), Abbatiello US 2022/0266533 (hereinafter Abbatiello) and Ho et al. US 2017/0225397 (hereinafter Ho) and further in view of Zhou et al. “Topology optimization of thermal conductive support structures for laser additive manufacturing” from “Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 353 (2019) 24–43” (hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho does not explicitly teach: the erodible support structure is configured to have selected thermal properties based on varying the porosity throughout the erodible support structure.
However, Zhou teaches: the erodible support structure is configured to have selected thermal properties based on varying the porosity throughout the erodible support structure (Fig. 13, Page 29-34 - - topology optimization of thermal conductive structure; Fig. 13(b) shows support structure varying porosity throughout the structure)
Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, Ho and Zhou are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing 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 Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho, and incorporating a support structure having thermal properties based on varying porosity, as taught by Zhou.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to optimize support structure to efficiently transferring heat to heat sink, as suggested by Zhou (Abstract).
Claims 3, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courter et al. US 2018/0370155 (hereinafter Courter) in view of COECK et al. US 2021/0086440 (hereinafter COECK), Abbatiello US 2022/0266533 (hereinafter Abbatiello) and Ho et al. US 2017/0225397 (hereinafter Ho) and further in view of Shaarawi et al. US 2021/0001401 (hereinafter Shaarawi).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho does not explicitly teach:
removing the erodible support structure from the part by mechanical means.
However, Shaarawi teaches:
removing the erodible support structure from the part by mechanical means ([0158] - - bead blasting)
Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, Ho and Shaarawi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing 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 Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho, and incorporating removing support structure by mechanical means, as taught by Shaarawi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve 3D printing process, as suggested by Shaarawi ([0158]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho does not explicitly teach: removing the erodible support structure from the part by bead blasting.
However, Shaarawi teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by bead blasting ([0158] - - bead blasting)
Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, Ho and Shaarawi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing 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 Courter, COECK, Abbatiello, and Ho, and incorporating removing the erodible support structure from the part by bead blasting, as taught by Shaarawi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve 3D printing process, as suggested by Shaarawi ([0158]).
Claims 13, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courter et al. US 2018/0370155 (hereinafter Courter) in view of Abbatiello US 2022/0266533 (hereinafter Abbatiello) and Ho et al. US 2017/0225397 (hereinafter Ho).
Regarding claim 13, Courter teaches: a process for improving precision in additive manufacturing processes, the process comprising:
additively manufacturing a part and an erodible support structure (Fig.17 - - print part and porous support material);
wherein the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: cross-hatch spacing, rotation amount, and fill pattern (Fig. 9 shows object and support structure use different cross-hatch spacing and fill pattern; Fig. 11 shows object and support structure use different rotation amount); and
removing the erodible support structure from the part ([0087] - - remove the support material using an aqueous-based solution);
wherein the erodible support structure is configured to mechanically support the part during the additive manufacturing ([0001] - - support structures to support a part built in a layer wise additive process), and wherein the erodible support structure has a first portion with a first porosity and a second portion with a second porosity, the first porosity different from the second porosity such that under the first porosity and the second porosity condition the erodible support structure is erodible ([0095] - - variation of density/porosity in the support structure).
But Courter does not explicitly teach:
the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: scan speed, laser power, layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size.
However, Abbatiello teaches: the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: scan speed, laser power, layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size, ([0054] - - different scanning speed, energy introduced per unit area for support structure and object).
Courter and Abbatiello are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 process, as taught by Courter, and incorporating using different scan speed and power for object and support structure, as taught by Abbatiello.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve producing support structure, as suggested by Abbatiello ([0007]).
But the combination of Courter and Abbatiello does not explicitly teach:
the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size.
However, Ho teaches: the part is additively manufactured using at least one process parameter that is different than the erodible support structure, wherein the at least one process parameter is selected from the group consisting of: layer thickness, beam spot size, beam focal size, ([0056] - - the layer height of the supporting object slices are different to the layer height of the molded object slice).
Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 process, as taught by the combination of Courter and Abbatiello, and incorporating using different layer thickness for object and support structure, as taught by Ho.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve effectively save the printing time and the usage amount of supplies, as suggested by Ho ([0028]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Courter further teaches: the first portion has a higher percent porosity than the second portion, and the part is around fully dense (Fig. 14, [0095], [0101] - - the support structure’s porosity varies as a function of distance from the part;).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Courter further teaches: the first portion has a porosity greater than around 20% ([0017] - - more than 20%).
Claims 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courter et al. US 2018/0370155 (hereinafter Courter) in view of Abbatiello US 2022/0266533 (hereinafter Abbatiello) and Ho et al. US 2017/0225397 (hereinafter Ho) and further in view ZAFAR et al. US 2018/0311733 (hereinafter ZAFAR).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho does not explicitly teach: removing the erodible support structure from the part by abrasive means.
However, ZAFAR teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by abrasive means ([0130] - - removing support structure by resonance; applying resonance frequency is an abrasive means).
Courter, Abbatiello, Ho and ZAFAR are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing 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 Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho, and incorporating removing support structure by abrasive means, as taught by ZAFAR.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to easily remove support structure, as suggested by ZAFAR ([0161]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho does not explicitly teach: the first portion is configured to be erodible and the second portion is configured to be not erodible.
However, ZAFAR teaches: the first portion is configured to be erodible and the second portion is configured to be not erodible (Fig. 18, [0130] - - applying the resonance frequency causing the ends of upward extensions to break away from build piece; thus the upward extensions are erodible the based is not erodible).
Courter, Abbatiello, Ho and ZAFAR are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing 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 Courter, and incorporating a portion of support structure is erodible and another portion is not erodible, as taught by ZAFAR.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to easily remove support structure, as suggested by ZAFAR ([0161]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courter et al. US 2018/0370155 (hereinafter Courter) ) in view of Abbatiello US 2022/0266533 (hereinafter Abbatiello) and Ho et al. US 2017/0225397 (hereinafter Ho) and further in view of Shaarawi et al. US 2021/0001401 (hereinafter Shaarawi) and further in view of Zhou et al. “Topology optimization of thermal conductive support structures for laser additive manufacturing” from “Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 353 (2019) 24–43” (hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho does not explicitly teach: removing the erodible support structure from the part by bead blasting.
However, Shaarawi teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by bead blasting ([0158] - - bead blasting)
Courter, Abbatiello, Ho and Shaarawi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing 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 Courter, Abbatiello, and Ho, and incorporating removing the erodible support structure from the part by bead blasting, as taught by Shaarawi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve 3D printing process, as suggested by Shaarawi ([0158]).
But the combination of Courter, Abbatiello, Ho and Shaarawi does not explicitly teach: the second portion is configured to have a higher effective thermal conductivity than the first portion.
However, Zhou teaches: a second portion is configured to have a higher effective thermal conductivity than a first portion. (Fig. 13, Page 29-34 - - topology optimization of thermal conductive structure)
Courter, Abbatiello, Ho, Shaarawi and Zhou are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing 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 Courter, Abbatiello, Ho and Shaarawi, and incorporating a support structure having thermal properties based on varying porosity, as taught by Zhou.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to optimize support structure to efficiently transferring heat to heat sink, as suggested by Zhou (Abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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
Prosecution Insights