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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, which now encompasses claims 1-20 as amended in the reply filed on January 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Though applicant’s amendment has rendered all pending claims directed to the elected invention, the basis for restriction between process and apparatus set forth November 10, 2025 remains valid, and should applicant later amend to recite claims directed to the non-elected apparatus, such claims will be withdrawn pursuant to applicant’s election of the process.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 12, 2025 have been considered by the examiner see attached PTO-1449.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the non-patent literature references starting on page 42 have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1A-F should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Page 35 line 2 of the specification attributes the content of Figs. 1A-F entirely to “the literature”. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“line X” in Fig. 1A;
“line Y” in Fig. 1B;
“sector 5 – suc.” In Fig. 1C;
“sector 5 – LHI” in Fig. 1D;
“sector 2.5 – suc.” In Fig. 1E;
“sector 2.5 – LHI” in Fig. 1F;
“B4”, “C4”, “D4”, “E4”, “F4” in Fig. 2B [note that C4 of Fig. 2B is not a C4 connection mentioned in the specification];
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 10, 16, and 18-20 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the layer" in line 3. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 introduces “a layer”, but neither claim 3 nor claim 10 depends on claim 6.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the prior melted segments" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 claims that segments are heated but not necessarily melted.
Claim 18 as amended claims both “configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate” and “residual stress proximal to an interface between the substrate and the defined portion”. The limitation “configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate” claims that the defined portion is a constituent of the substrate, but the limitation “residual stress proximal to an interface between the substrate and the defined portion” claims that same defined portion as separate structure from that same substrate. It is not clear from claim 18 as worded whether or not the defined portion is a constituent of the substrate.
The term “approach but not exceed a threshold temperature criterion and a stress criterion” in second page of claim 18 line 10 and the second page of claim 18 lines 27-28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The degree of the approach in the term “approach but not exceed a threshold temperature criterion and a stress criterion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear in claim 18, how closely temperature and stress must arrive at the claimed criteria in order to be considered approaching the criteria, or if claim 18 encompasses any infinitesimal changes toward the claimed criteria. For example, if a temperature criterion were set at
1,000
°
C would a step of heating from room temperature to 100
°
C be considered approaching the temperature criterion? The direction of change from room temperature is toward
1,000
°
C, but 100
°
C is significantly closer to room temperature than
100
°
C is to
1,000
°
C.
Claim 18 claims heating “under conditions which are predicted to approach but not exceed a threshold temperature criterion and a stress criterion of the first region”. It is not clear whether claim 18 is limited to heating under conditions which approach but do not exceed a threshold temperature criterion and a stress criterion of the first region or if claim 18 encompasses all heating under conditions which are predicted to approach but not exceed a threshold temperature criterion and a stress criterion of the first region, whether or not those conditions exceed threshold temperature and stress criteria in practice. For example, it is not clear if claim 18 encompasses heating under conditions predicted by inaccurate modeling wherein the actual heating is under conditions which exceed a threshold temperature criterion and a stress criterion input to the poor model.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 18.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the defined series of segments" in the fourth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If claim 19 were intended to recite one of the series of positions recited in claim 18, replacing “segments” with “positions” would still raise uncertainty because it would not be clear to which “positions” the defined series of positions refers.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 20120308781) in view of Schoenung (WO2020263400A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses a manufacturing method (Title, abstract, [0001]). Abe discloses that the method selectively heats portions of a surface of a substrate (base plate) with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate (scanning upper surface of the base plate with light beam [0078], [0091-92], Fig. 12). Abe discloses that directing the energy source causes heating [0091-92] and thermal stress in the defined portion ([0019], [0092-93], Figs. 12-13. Abe defines warping as deformation attributed to heat treatment [0014], thereby establishing that the stress of warping of paragraphs [0019], [0091-93] is a thermal stress.). Abe discloses exposing a first portion of the surface of the substrate (base plate) to the concentrated energy to cause the heating and the thermal stress proximate to the first portion ([0035], [0091], vector comprising point (a) in Fig. 12) and exposing a second portion of the surface of the substrate (base plate) adjacent to the first portion to the concentrated energy (vector comprising unlabeled point below point (a) in Fig. 12) to cause the heating and the thermal stress proximate to the second portion ([0019], [0035], [0091-93]).
Abe discloses that the thermal stress causes substrate warping [0013-14], [0091-93], [0101-107], and Abe teaches warping as an effect to mitigate [0007], [0020]. Abe discloses adjusting energy parameter to achieve an intended degree of warping caused by heating, and Abe lists consolidated energy scan speed (a scanning rate of the light beam) as a parameter which may be adjusted [0079]. As Abe discloses adjusting scan speed to achieve an intended degree of thermal stress-induced warpage [0013-14], [0079], [0091-93], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the energy scanning speed in the process disclosed by Abe dependent on the thermal stress in the substrate, including portions of the substrate proximate to the first portion. As latency between heating adjacent portions depends on how quickly those portions are heated, adjusting scan speed depending on thermal stress, adjusts the latency between heating adjacent points depending on thermal stress.
Abe does not disclose adjusting heating parameters has some dependency on a peak temperature.
Schoenung teaches a manufacturing method (Abstract, [0002]). Schoenung teaches that the method comprises selectively heating portions of material applied to a surface of a substrate with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the material applied to the surface of the substrate [0025], [0041]. Schoenung teaches that the energy causes heating and thermal stress in the defined portion [0063-64]. Schoenung teaches adjusting irradiation parameters in order to dependent on peak temperature to mitigate thermal stresses and warping [0064]. Schoenung teaches energy beam scan speed as a parameter which may be adjusted [0064].
Both Abe and Schoenung teach manufacturing methods for selectively heating portions with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion, and both Abe and Schoenung teach mitigating warpage induced by thermal stress. Abe discloses
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to set energy source parameters in the process disclosed by Abe, applied above dependent on some thermal stress in the substrate because both Abe [0079] and Schoenung [0064] teach adjusting irradiation parameters to control warping. As Schoenung teaches that such adjustments control a peak temperature [0064], one of ordinary skill in the art would expect such adjustment to limit the peak temperature. Applicant is encouraged to consider whether or not there truly is a manipulative difference in the range of specific activity between adjusting energy beam parameters depending on some peak temperature of unspecified value and adjusting energy beam parameters to an extent that limits the peak temperature, as taught by Schoenung [0064], particularly considering that claim 1 encompasses any peak temperature.
Regarding claim 5, Abe discloses an embodiment, wherein the concentrated energy both causes thermal stress induced warpage in the substrate and solidifies by melting or sintering powder feed material [0014], [0016-19], [0093-95], thereby disclosing some phase transition in the powder material at the defined portion.
Regarding claim 6, Abe discloses an embodiment, wherein the concentrated energy both causes thermal stress induced warpage in the substrate and solidifies by melting or sintering powder material deposited as a layer prior to exposure with the energy beam ([0014], [0016-19], [0093-95], Figs. 1, 13), thereby disclosing depositing a layer on a substrate before exposing the first portion.
Regarding claim 7, Abe discloses melting or sintering the deposited powder material with the consolidated energy [0016], [0094-95], thereby disclosing that the deposited layer comprises a meltable or sinterable powder, and the concentrated energy causes melting or sintering of the powder.
Regarding claim 8, Abe discloses that the energy source comprises a laser [0024], [0040], [0092].
Regarding claim 10, Schoenung discloses that all parameters are determined by and controlled by software [0026], thereby teaching that the adjusting of the energy parameters in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung, as applied to claim 1 above, is to some extent determined by automatic control. Schoenung teaches that adjusting consolidated energy parameters control the material properties of the feed material [0033]; therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust energy parameters in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung depending on the properties of supplied material. As discussed with respect to claim 1, adjustment of the energy scan speed is determined to avoid thermal stress and is interdependent with temperature setting, controlling energy parameters by automated control depending on material properties determines and to some extent calculates the peak temperature, and the thermal stress in the substrate. As the substrate is necessarily a supplied material, in controlling energy properties depending on supplied material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control depending on properties of the substrate to some extent.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 20120308781) in view of Schoenung (WO2020263400A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ploshikhin (US20210129226).
Regarding claim 2, Abe in view of Schoenung does not disclose exposing a portion which is not adjacent to the adjacent first and second portions to the concentrate energy in the latency between exposing the adjacent first and second portions.
Ploshikhin teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of a material on the surface of a build platform with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate, to cause heating in the defined portion (title, abstract, [0002], [0004], [0011-12], [0074]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a first portion to the concentrated energy (Segment S1 Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-145]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a second portion adjacent to the first portion to the concentrated energy (Segment S3 Fig. 9, 10(c) [0012], [0074], [0144], [0147]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a third portion in the latency between exposing the first portion and exposing the second portion (segment S2 Figs. 9, 10(b), [0012], [0074], [0144], [0146]). Ploshikhin shows that the third portion (segment S2) is not adjacent to the first portion (segment S1) and is not adjacent to the second portion (Segment S3) and that the first portion (segment S1) is adjacent to the second portion (segment S3) (Figs. 9, 10(a-c)). Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that the irradiation sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80].
Both Ploshikhin and Abe in view of Schoenung teach adjusting manufacturing parameters to control heat effects, including component warping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to expose a third portion, which is not adjacent to either the first or the second portion, to the concentrated energy, in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung, applied above during a latency between exposing adjacent first and second points to the concentrated energy because Ploshikhin teaches segmentation in a process which exposes a non-adjacent segment in a latency between exposing adjacent segments in a sequence of exposing portions (Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0144-148]) which results in at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion, and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80]. Abe in view of Schoenung does not disclose a preference for concentrated energy scanning sequence, and both Abe [0079], and Schoenung [0064] teach setting parameters in order to control thermal effects, including warping. Abe [0091-93] and Schoenung [0064] teach that such exposure causes heating and thermal stress proximate to the portion heated.
Regarding claim 3, Ploshikhin teaches selecting segment positions in order to maintain a constant temperature gradient (steady state) throughout the component [0017], [0072], [0129-135]; therefore, Ploshikhin teaches selecting spatial relation of segments dependent on temperature change between segments. In order to achieve the effects of segmentation taught by Ploshikhin [0016], [0075-80], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine spatial relationships of segments in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung and Ploshikhin dependent on temperature change. As Schoenung teaches [0064], and Ploshikhin suggest [0075-80] that temperature change and thermal stress are interdependent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that determining spatial relation of segments dependent on temperature change also determines spatial relationship of segments depending on thermal stress.
Regarding claim 4, Abe discloses that concentrated energy moves on a path ([0074], Fig. 12), thereby disclosing repositioning the concentrated energy over the course of the process. As claim 1 claims “a latency between heating of the first portion and before heating the adjacent second portion is selectively dependent on a peak temperature of the substrate, and a thermal stress proximate to the first portion” and claim 2 claims “during the latency, a third portion of the surface of the substrate which is not adjacent to the first portion and is not adjacent to the second portion is exposed to the concentrated energy”, claim 4 already requires some threshold temperature (the peak temperature) and thermal stress (the thermal stress proximate to the first component) limit the latency during which the third portion is exposed, and Abe in view of Schoenung meets the threshold limitations for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1. If applicant intends claim 4 to recite threshold temperature and stress different from those recited in claim 1, such intent should be more directly claimed, provided the intent is supported by the disclosure as filed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 20120308781) in view of Schoenung (WO2020263400A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schiffres (US20200049415). Schiffres is cited on sheet 153 of the IDS filed January 12, 2025.
Regarding claim 9, Abe in view of Schoenung does not disclose that the substrate comprises an integrated circuit.
Schiffres teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of material applied to a surface of a substrate with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on defined portions [0022-24]. Schiffres teaches that the energy causes heating and thermal stress [0030], [0042], [0068]. Schiffres teaches exposing a portion of material applied to the surface of the substrate to the concentrated energy to cause the heating and the thermal stress proximate to the portion [0042], [0068], [0075], [0077], [0080]. Schiffres teaches that energy parameters depend on a thermal stress proximate to the portion (interfacial bond failure stress limit [0068]) and that scan speed affects temperature attained [0197], [0217]. Schiffres teaches that the substrate is an integrated circuit [0060], [0077], [0081].
Both Schiffres and Abe in view of Schoenung teach similar manufacturing methods.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung, applied above to a process of manufacturing an object, wherein a substrate thereof is an integrated circuit because Schiffres teaches such a substrate as an appropriate application for a similar process [0022-24], [0060], [0070], [0077], [0081]. Abe [0091-94], Schoenung [0064], and Schiffres [0068] all consider effects of thermal stress on limiting process conditions, and Abe is broadly open to producing “various kinds of objects” [0124]; therefore, in view of Schiffres [0022-24], [0067-70], [0070], [0081], one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the process disclosed by Abe in view of Schoenung may be successfully applied to manufacturing an object wherein the object is manufactured with an integrated circuit as a substrate.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 20120308781). Abe is cited on sheet 75 of the IDS filed January 12, 2025.
Regarding claim 11, Abe discloses a material processing manufacturing method, (Title, abstract, [0001], [0069]). Abe discloses defines a series of vectors for treatment, each vector representing a region to be selectively heated ([0035], [0091-92], Fig. 12). A vector meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a segment. Abe discloses an embodiment wherein selective heating processes a layer on a surface of a substrate [0093-94]. Abe discloses that the path of scanning the concentrated energy is determined by software [0074], and Abe shows that there is some degree of overlap in successive segments (vectors) (Fig. 12). As determining the segments by software does automatically check the segments to some extent, and the segments overlap, Abe discloses automatically checking each successive segment to control an overlap ([0074], Fig. 12). As concentrated energy disclosed by Abe heats [0091-94], [0078-79], controlling spatial overlap with prior heated segments controls thermal overlap with prior heated segments to some extent.
Abe shows a scan path wherein spatially adjacent segments are exposed to the energy sequentially (Fig. 12). Abe discloses that the thermal stress causes substrate warping [0013-14], [0091-93], [0101-107], and Abe teaches warping as an effect to mitigate [0007], [0020]. Abe discloses adjusting energy parameter to achieve an intended degree of warping caused by heating, [0079]. As Abe discloses adjusting energy parameters to achieve an intended degree of thermal stress-induced warpage [0013-14], [0079], [0091-93], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to maintain the degree of thermal stress in the process disclosed by Abe at or below some threshold value. A process which both maintains thermal stress at or below a threshold value and exposes adjacent segments to the concentrated energy sequentially is a process wherein thermal stress would not exceed the threshold as a result of the heating of the respective segment, and a spatially proximate segment is selected as the next successive segment of the series of segments. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 17, Abe discloses that the material processing comprises an additive manufacturing process, and the selective heating melts, fuses or sinters particles deposited on the surface of the substrate to form the layer (title, abstract [0014], [0016-19], [0093-95]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US20120308781) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ploshikhin (US20210129226) and Nardi (US20140277669). Nardi is cited on sheet 84 of the IDS filed January 12, 2025.
Regarding claim 12, Abe discloses planning irradiation data in advance of performing the process [0074], and Abe discloses setting energy parameters in order to attain an intended degree of stress induced warping [0079]. Considering Abe discloses setting parameters to attain a degree of stress induced warping [0079], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that obtaining the scan data and planning the process disclosed by Abe [0074] comprises some degree of consideration of a maximum stress to ensure the process attains the intended degree of thermal stress and warpage disclosed by Abe [0079].
Abe does not disclose that planning the sequence and timing of the process assuring that defined steps do not exceed a maximum thermal gradient.
Ploshikhin teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of a material on the surface of a build platform with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate, to cause heating in the defined portion (title, abstract, [0002], [0004], [0011-12], [0074]). Ploshikhin teaches sequences of exposure comprising exposing both proximate and distant segments (Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-150]). Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that simulating with a constant thermal gradient is useful for planning scan sequence [0125-129]. Ploshikhin teaches planning sequence and timing by simulation [0012], [0053]. Ploshikhin teaches that the irradiation sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80].
Both Abe and Ploshikhin teach similar manufacturing processes comprising adjusting parameters to control thermal effects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to plan the scanning sequence and timing of the process disclosed by Abe by simulating conditions based on a thermal gradient threshold criterion because Ploshikhin teaches favorable control of thermal effects resulting from simulating a sequence that assures intended thermal gradients in such additive manufacturing processes [0012], [0016], [0053], [0075-80], [0120], [0125-129].
Abe in view of Ploshikhin does not disclose planning with Multiphysics simulations.
Nardi teaches planning in a material processing, additive manufacturing method (Title, abstract, [0004]). In one embodiment Nardi teaches inputting manufacturing requirements as constraints for determining optimized manufacturing geometry [0065]. Nardi teaches thermal gradient as a constraint which may be simulated to plan design [0065]. Nardi obtains values of the manufacturing constraints with Multiphysics simulations [0063-65]. Nardi teaches maximum temperature an object attains as a constraint which Multiphysics simulations can model [0064].
Both Nardi and Abe in view of Ploshikhin teach planning for performing an additive manufacturing process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to plan irradiation parameters of the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin, applied above with some Multiphysics simulation because Nardi teaches Multiphysics simulations as effective for modeling physical manufacturing constraints in considerations for planning additive manufacturing processes [0063-65]. Considering Ploshikhin teaches temperature equalization within the component and minimizing the risk of overheating as a favorable outcome planning the additive manufacturing sequence [0075-78], Abe discloses thermal stress as the cause of warpage [0013], [0019] [0077], [0092-93], and Nardi provides maximum temperature attained by an object as a constraint which Multiphysics simulations can model [0063-65], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to plan with the Multiphysics simulation as disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi to assure some threshold temperature is not reached.
Regarding claim 13, Ploshikhin teaches that a repositioning of the heating between successive segments incurs a distance-related latency [0053], [0166], and Ploshikhin teaches that embodiments of planning the sequence reduces time between irradiating segments [0021], [0031]. Nardi further teaches additive manufacturing build rate as a constraint which may factor into the sequence planning [0051]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art plan the sequence and timing in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi, to minimize a material processing duration because Ploshikhin teaches that sequence planning may shorten the duration between intervals [0021], [0031], [0050], and Nardi teaches that additive manufacturing build rate is a manufacturing constraint which may be considered in planning the manufacturing process [0051].
As the process of Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi as applied to claim 12 plans in consideration of the maximum temperature, the maximum thermal gradient, and the maximum stress, in performing the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi, as applied to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art not to exceed the maximum temperature, the maximum thermal gradient, and the maximum stress.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US20120308781) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hyatt (US20190270247).
Regarding claim 14, Abe does not disclose measuring an in situ temperature.
Hyatt teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of a surface of a substrate with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the substrate [0008], [0011]. Hyatt teaches that the energy causes heating and thermal stress in the exposed portion [0008], [0011], [0077]. Hyatt teaches actively controlling the temperature of portions exposed to the energy and proximate portions [0008], [0073-74], [0079-81] to achieve a predetermined temperature target [0074], [0079-80], [0085]. Hyatt teaches in situ temperature measurements and applying heat dependent on the in situ measurements [0079-80]. Hyatt teaches that controlling the temperature can avoid high temperature gradients which could yield cracking and deformation [0073], [0090]. Hyatt further teaches controlling energy parameters to avoid losing material exposed to the concentrated energy [0060].
Both Abe and Hyatt teach adjusting additive manufacturing energy parameters to control for thermal effects.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to measure the temperature in the process disclosed by Abe, applied above, in situ because Hyatt teaches in situ temperature monitoring to prevent temperature gradients which may cause cracks and deformation [0073-74], [0079-81], [0085], [0090]. As Hyatt achieves the control by adjusting heating selectively dependent on the in situ temperature measurement relative to a predetermined threshold temperature [0074], [0079-80], [0085] it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain a temperature below the predetermined threshold temperature. Note that certain steps in claim 14 are contingent on the in situ temperature exceeding the threshold temperature. As the process disclosed by Abe in view of Hyatt maintains a temperature below the threshold temperature, Abe in view of Hyatt meets claim 14. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Abe discloses determining process constraints based on properties of the substrate (base plate), properties of the layer, layer geometry, and geometry of previously heated segments ([0014], [0074], [0079], [0081-82], [0094], Figs. 11-15). Abe does not disclose determining process constraints empirically. Hyatt teaches actively controlling the temperature of portions exposed to the energy and proximate portions [0008], [0073-74], [0079-81] to achieve a predetermined temperature target [0074], [0079-80], [0085]. Hyatt teaches that energy parameters depend on material and geometry [0073-75]. Hyatt teaches that constraints may be determined empirically (by experience [0079-80], [0084]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the material and geometric constraints disclosed by Abe ([0014], [0074], [0079], [0081-82], [0094], Figs. 11-15) empirically because Hyatt teaches that material and geometric constraints for additive manufacturing energy control parameters may be effectively determined empirically [0079-80], [0084], thereby predictably providing a mechanism to obtain constraints disclosed by Abe.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US20120308781) in view of Ploshikhin (US20210129226).
Regarding claim 18, Abe discloses a manufacturing method (Title, abstract, [0001]). Abe discloses that the method selectively heats portions of a surface of a substrate (base plate) with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate (scanning upper surface of the base plate with light beam [0078], [0091-92], Fig. 12). Abe discloses that directing the energy source causes heating [0091-92] and thermal stress in the defined portion ([0019], [0092-93], Figs. 12-13. Abe defines warping as deformation attributed to heat treatment [0014], thereby establishing that the stress of warping of paragraphs [0019], [0091-93] is a thermal stress.). Abe discloses an embodiment, wherein the concentrated energy both causes thermal stress induced warpage in the substrate and solidifies by melting or sintering powder feed material [0014], [0016-19], [0093-95], thereby disclosing some phase transition in the powder material at the defined portion. Abe discloses that the heating causes residual stress in the substrate proximate to the defined portion of the powder layer exposed to the concentrated energy ([0093], Fig. 13).
Abe shows exposing a first vector to the energy source (Fig. 12) to cause localized heating, residual stress, and the phase transition [0091-94]. Geometrically, a scan vector is a series of adjacent positions. Abe shows exposing subsequent vectors to the energy source (Fig. 12) ) to cause localized heating, residual stress, and the phase transition [0091-94]. Abe discloses that the thermal stress causes substrate warping [0013-14], [0091-93], [0101-107], and Abe teaches warping as an effect to mitigate [0007], [0020]. Abe discloses adjusting energy parameter to achieve an intended degree of warping caused by heating, and Abe lists consolidated energy scan speed (a scanning rate of the light beam) as a parameter which may be adjusted [0079]. As Abe discloses adjusting scan speed to achieve an intended degree of thermal stress-induced warpage [0013-14], [0079], [0091-93], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the energy scanning speed in the process disclosed by Abe dependent on the thermal stress in the substrate, including portions of the substrate proximate to the first portion. As latency between heating portions depends on how quickly those portions are heated, adjusting scan speed depending on thermal stress, adjusts the latency between heating positions depending on thermal stress.
Further, considering Abe discloses setting parameters to attain a degree of stress induced warping [0079], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to set energy parameters disclosed by Abe not to exceed some a threshold amount of stress in order to ensure the process attains the intended degree of thermal stress and warpage disclosed by Abe [0079]. Abe discloses that stress accumulates ([0092], [0094], Fig. 14), and Abe discloses that heating introduces stress [0092-94]; therefore, in adjusting parameters not to exceed some a threshold amount of stress, each step which introduces stress in each portion disclosed by Abe to some extent approaches but does not exceed some overall threshold value.
Abe does not disclose the sequence of exposing a first series of adjacent positions in a first region, a second series of adjacent positions in a second region subsequent to exposing the first series of adjacent positions, and exposing a third series of adjacent positions in the first region subsequent to exposing the second series of adjacent positions.
Ploshikhin teaches a manufacturing method for selectively heating portions of a material on the surface of a build platform with an energy source configured to direct concentrated energy on a defined portion of the surface of the substrate, to cause heating in the defined portion (title, abstract, [0002], [0004], [0011-12], [0074]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a first portion comprising a first series of adjacent positions to the concentrated energy (Segment S1 Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-145]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a second portion comprising a second series of adjacent positions subsequent to exposing the first portion and exposing the second portion (segment S2 Figs. 9, 10(b), [0012], [0074], [0144], [0146]). Ploshikhin teaches exposing a third portion comprising a third series of adjacent positions, the third portion adjacent to the first portion, to the concentrated energy (Segment S3 Fig. 9, 10(c) [0012], [0074], [0144], [0147]). Ploshikhin shows that the second portion (segment S2) is not adjacent to the first portion (segment S1) and is not adjacent to the third portion (Segment S3), and Ploshikhin teaches that the first portion (segment S1) is adjacent to the third portion (segment S3) (Figs. 9, 10(a-c)); therefore, Ploshikhin teaches that the first and third portion define some common first region by virtue of adjacency, and that the second portion defines some second region by virtue of non-adjacency. As the segments comprising series of positions are in different respective positions (Figs. 9, 10), the energy source exposed on each position taught by Ploshikhin must necessarily be repositioned in sequentially exposing segments. Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that simulating with a constant thermal gradient is useful for planning scan sequence [0125-129]. Ploshikhin teaches planning sequence and timing by simulation [0012], [0053]. Ploshikhin teaches that the irradiation sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80].
Both Ploshikhin and Abe teach adjusting manufacturing parameters to control heat effects, including component warping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to perform the process disclosed by Abe, applied above, according to a sequence comprising exposing a first series of adjacent positions in a first region, exposing a second series of adjacent positions in a second region subsequent to exposing the first series of positions, and exposing a third series of adjacent positions in the first region subsequent to exposing the second series of adjacent positions, because Ploshikhin teaches segmentation in a process which exposes a non-adjacent segment in a latency between exposing adjacent segments in a sequence of exposing portions (Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0144-148]) which results in at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion, and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80]. Abe does not disclose a preference for concentrated energy scanning sequence, and Abe teaches setting parameters in order to control thermal effects, including warping [0079]. Abe teaches that such exposure causes heating and thermal stress proximate to the portion heated [0091-93]. Considering Ploshikhin teaches temperature equalization within the component and minimizing the risk of overheating as a favorable outcome planning the additive manufacturing sequence [0075-78], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to adjust process parameters in the method disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin to avoid reaching some peak temperature. Adjusting process parameters to avoid reaching some peak temperature invokes a dependency of exposure latency on that peak temperature and establishes a heating condition wherein temperature of heating each series of adjacent positions approaches but does not exceed the peak temperature.
Ploshikhin teaches that regions cool when not exposed to the concentrated energy [0115-116]; therefore, at the moment of exposing the second series of adjacent positions of the second region subsequent to exposing the first series of adjacent positions of the first region, the second series of adjacent positions is sufficiently distant from the first region such that the first region cools to some extent while the second region is being heated.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US20120308781) in view of Ploshikhin (US20210129226) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Nardi (US20140277669).
Regarding claim 19, Abe discloses planning irradiation data in advance of performing the process [0074], and Abe discloses setting energy parameters in order to attain an intended degree of stress induced warping [0079]. Considering Abe discloses setting parameters to attain a degree of stress induced warping [0079], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that obtaining the scan data and planning the process disclosed by Abe [0074] comprises some degree of consideration of a maximum stress to ensure the process attains the intended degree of thermal stress and warpage disclosed by Abe [0079].
Abe does not disclose that planning the sequence and timing of the process assuring that defined steps do not exceed a maximum thermal gradient. Ploshikhin teaches sequences of exposure comprising exposing both proximate and distant segments (Figs. 9, 10(a), [0012], [0074], [0144-150]). Ploshikhin teaches that exposure causes heating proximate to the exposed portions [0120]. Ploshikhin teaches that simulating with a constant thermal gradient is useful for planning scan sequence [0125-129]. Ploshikhin teaches planning sequence and timing by simulation [0012], [0053]. Ploshikhin teaches that the irradiation sequence results in rapid dissipation within the component of the energy introduced, which leads to at least one of the following advantages: better temperature equalization within the component generated, reduced risk of local overheating, reduction of the internal stresses and distortion [thermal stress induced warping], and more uniform distribution of component properties. [0016], [0075-80].
Both Abe and Ploshikhin teach similar manufacturing processes comprising adjusting parameters to control thermal effects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to plan the scanning sequence and timing of the process disclosed by Abe by simulating conditions based on a thermal gradient threshold criterion because Ploshikhin teaches favorable control of thermal effects resulting from simulating a sequence that assures intended thermal gradients in such additive manufacturing processes [0012], [0016], [0053], [0075-80], [0120], [0125-129].
Abe in view of Ploshikhin does not disclose planning with Multiphysics simulations.
Nardi teaches planning in a material processing, additive manufacturing method (Title, abstract, [0004]). In one embodiment Nardi teaches inputting manufacturing requirements as constraints for determining optimized manufacturing geometry [0065]. Nardi teaches thermal gradient as a constraint which may be simulated to plan design [0065]. Nardi obtains values of the manufacturing constraints with Multiphysics simulations [0063-65]. Nardi teaches maximum temperature an object attains as a constraint which Multiphysics simulations can model [0064].
Both Nardi and Abe in view of Ploshikhin teach planning for performing an additive manufacturing process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to plan irradiation parameters of the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin, applied above with some Multiphysics simulation because Nardi teaches Multiphysics simulations as effective for modeling physical manufacturing constraints in considerations for planning additive manufacturing processes [0063-65]. Considering Ploshikhin teaches temperature equalization within the component and minimizing the risk of overheating as a favorable outcome planning the additive manufacturing sequence [0075-78], Abe discloses thermal stress as the cause of warpage [0013], [0019] [0077], [0092-93], and Nardi provides maximum temperature attained by an object as a constraint which Multiphysics simulations can model [0063-65], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to plan with the Multiphysics simulation as disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi to assure some threshold temperature is not reached.
Regarding claim 20, Abe shows that scan path overlaps to some extent (Fig. 12). Abe discloses planning scan path [0074] and adjusting energy scan speed [0079]. Ploshikhin teaches that a repositioning of the heating between successive segments incurs a distance-related latency [0053], [0166], and Ploshikhin teaches that embodiments of planning the sequence reduces time between irradiating segments [0021], [0031]. Ploshikhin further teaches that treatment of adjacent segments may comprise an additional merging exposure step (Fig. 15, [0157]). Nardi further teaches additive manufacturing build rate as a constraint which may factor into the sequence planning [0051], and optimizing parameters based on cost as a constraint ([0044], [0059], claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define a cost function based on system parameters because Nardi discloses cost as a constraint in an additive manufacturing optimization planning [0044], [0059], and Nardi teaches cost advantages as a reason why additive manufacturing
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art plan the sequence and timing in the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi, to minimize a material processing duration because Ploshikhin teaches that sequence planning may shorten the duration between intervals [0021], [0031], [0050], and Nardi teaches that the low cost of additive manufacturing is a feature appreciated by one of skill in the art [0051]. As Ploshikhin teaches that adjacent segment overlap may comprise additional steps ([0157], Fig. 15); Ploshikhin teaches that a repositioning of the heating between successive segments incurs a distance-related latency [0053], [0166], and Ploshikhin teaches that embodiments of planning the sequence reduces time between irradiating segments [0021], [0031], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to factor repositioning time and manipulative steps at overlapping, adjacent position into the determination of the cost function. In order to obtain any benefit from the cost function, it would be necessary to employ the cost function. As the function optimizes operating parameters, as taught by Nardi [0051] employing the cost function would predictably optimize the process disclosed by Abe in view of Ploshikhin and Nardi, which as applied to claim 18 comprises sequences of the exposing and the repositioning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738