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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the objections to the claims made in the previous Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 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 § 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, 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hussein et al. “Advanced lattice support structures for metal additive manufacturing” from “Journal of Materials Processing Technology 213 (2013) 1019– 1026” (hereinafter Hussein).
Regarding claim 1, Hussein teaches: a process for improving precision in additive manufacturing processes, the process comprising:
additively manufacturing a part and an erodible support structure (Page 1021, Fig. 3); and
removing the erodible support structure from the part (Page 1025, left column - - support structure removal);
wherein the erodible support structure is configured to mechanically support the part during the additive manufacturing and wherein 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 (Page 1022, section 4.1 - - “For the support using 8% volume fraction, this could mean 92% of loose powders embedded within lattice support could be recycled and reused.” This means 8% volume fraction means 92% porosity.).
Regarding claim 3, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hussein further teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by mechanical means (Page 1021 - - wire-cutting off the lattice support).
Regarding claim 5, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hussein further teaches: the erodible support structure is deposited such that it at least partially envelopes the part (Fig. 3, Fig. 5 - - the support structure partially envelopes the part).
Regarding claim 6, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hussein further teaches: the erodible support and the part are made of a common material (Page 1021, section 3.2 manufacturing process - - the support structure and the part are made of same material).
Regarding claim 7, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hussein further teaches: the porosity of the erodible support is achieved by varying process parameters, and wherein process parameters can consist of at least one from a list of: scan speed, laser power, cross-hatch spacing, layer thickness, rotation amount, beam spot size, beam focal size, and/or fill pattern (Fig. 2, Fig. 3 - - the porosity of the support lattice is achieved by cross-hatch spacing or fill pattern)
Regarding claim 8, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hussein further teaches: the erodible support structure has a porosity greater than around 20% (Page 1022, section 4.1 - - “For the support using 8% volume fraction, this could mean 92% of loose powders embedded within lattice support could be recycled and reused.” This means 8% volume fraction means 92% porosity.)
Regarding claim 9, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hussein further teaches: the erodible support structure has a porosity greater than around 35% (Page 1022, section 4.1 - - “For the support using 8% volume fraction, this could mean 92% of loose powders embedded within lattice support could be recycled and reused.” This means 8% volume fraction means 92% porosity.).
Claims 13, 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kuo et al. “Support structure design in additive manufacturing based on topology optimization” from “Struct Multidisc Optim (2018) 57:183–195” (hereinafter Kuo).
Regarding claim 13, Kuo teaches: a process for improving precision in additive manufacturing processes, the process comprising:
additively manufacturing a part and an erodible support structure (Page 190, Fig. 10); and
removing the erodible support structure from the part (Page 187, right column - - enable the supports to be easily removed);
wherein the erodible support structure is configured to mechanically support the part during the additive manufacturing 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 (Fig. 6c, Page 187, right column - - a twig-like support layout in the upper portion of the contact region enable the supports to be easily removed while still providing enough support stiffness to the deck; the upper portion and lower portion has different porosity).
Regarding claim 16, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kuo further teaches: the first portion has a higher percent porosity than the second portion, and the part is around fully dense (Fig. 6c, Page 187, right column, Fig. 16 - - the upper portion of the support structure has a higher percent porosity than the lower portion; the part is fully dense).
Regarding claim 17, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kuo further teaches: the first portion has a porosity greater than around 20% (Page 189 - - “pt is the support material concentration factor; pt represents porosity; pt =50%).
Regarding claim 18, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kuo further teaches: the first portion is configured to be erodible and the second portion is configured to be not erodible (Fig. 6a, 6c - - repulsion interface which is upper portion of support structure is erodible, Fig. 16 - - the upper portion of support structure is erodible, the lower portion is not erodible).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussein et al. “Advanced lattice support structures for metal additive manufacturing” from “Journal of Materials Processing Technology 213 (2013) 1019– 1026” (hereinafter Hussein) 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, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hussein 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)
Hussein 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 Hussein, 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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussein et al. “Advanced lattice support structures for metal additive manufacturing” from “Journal of Materials Processing Technology 213 (2013) 1019– 1026” (hereinafter Hussein) in view of Shaarawi et al. US 2021/0001401 (hereinafter Shaarawi).
Regarding claim 10, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hussein 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)
Hussein 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 Hussein, 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 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussein et al. “Advanced lattice support structures for metal additive manufacturing” from “Journal of Materials Processing Technology 213 (2013) 1019– 1026” (hereinafter Hussein) in view ZAFAR et al. US 2018/0311733 (hereinafter ZAFAR).
Regarding claim 11, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hussein does not explicitly teach: removing the erodible support structure from the part by chemical means.
However, ZAFAR teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by chemical means ([0060] - -the support structure is dissolved away).
Hussein 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 Hussein, and incorporating dissolving away support structure, 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 12, Hussein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hussein does not explicitly teach: removing the erodible support structure from the part by corroding away at least a portion of the erodible support structure.
However, ZAFAR teaches: removing the erodible support structure from the part by corroding away at least a portion of the erodible support structure ([0060] - -the support structure is dissolved away).
Hussein 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 Hussein, and incorporating dissolving away support structure, 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]).
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. “Support structure design in additive manufacturing based on topology optimization” from “Struct Multidisc Optim (2018) 57:183–195” (hereinafter Kuo) in view ZAFAR et al. US 2018/0311733 (hereinafter ZAFAR).
Regarding claim 15, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Kuo 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).
Kuo 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 Kuo, 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]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. “Support structure design in additive manufacturing based on topology optimization” from “Struct Multidisc Optim (2018) 57:183–195” (hereinafter Kuo) 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, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Kuo 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)
Kuo 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 Kuo, 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 Kuo 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)
Kuo, 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 Kuo 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