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 (claims 1-18 and 20) in the reply filed on 06/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 18 and 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 1 line recites “determining that the melt pool is within a threshold proximity of a merge region of the manufactured component; and responsive to the determining that the melt pool is within the threshold proximity of the merge region, adjusting a process parameter value of the additive manufacturing system from a process parameter pre-merge-region value to a process parameter merge-region value that differs from the process parameter pre-merge-region value”. Claim as written is vague and indefinite as it is unclear (i) whether applicant is bonding a layer to a preform (previously formed component), or (ii) applicant forms a component layer by layer. Since the claim recites “determining that the melt pool is within a threshold proximity of a merge region of the manufactured component” and while the preamble recites “manufacturing a component” it is unclear how such determining steps occur before the component is actually manufactured. If there is a test component, such must be clearly recited, and furthermore, it is unclear how one skilled in the art would determine whether the “melt pool is within a threshold proximity” and if there are sensors, or specific algorithm applied.
Claim 3 recites “method repeating the moving to define a consolidated material layer that includes a corresponding plurality of consolidated material tracks”. Claim as written is unclear how the addition location along the scan path. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner broadly interprets this as forming a track of consolidated material by applying energy along a scan path.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the determining includes determining that at least one consolidated material trac of the plurality of consolidated track is less than a threshold distance from the merge region”. Claim is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what is considered a threshold distance, and how one skilled in the art determines that at least one consolidated material track is less than threshold distance from the merge region. Claim is silent to specific algorithm or sensors or even a detector.
Claim 5 recites “repeating the moving to define a plurality of stacked consolidated material layer.” Claim is vague as to what is being moved, is it the energy beam, or the build platform, or optics.
Claim 7 recites “determining that the melt pool is within the threshold proximity of the merge region” and it is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this determining step involves specific algorithm, test component, or sensors. Similar rejection is applied for claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “adjusting the process parameter value includes applying a process parameter value gradient within a transition region between a build deposition region and the merge region”. Claim does not yet specify what is process parameter value pertains to gradient, is it energy, intensity, composition, flow rate etc.
Claim 15 recites “determining that a merge region angle of the merge region is less than a threshold merge region angle and notifying an operator of the additive manufacturing system that the merge region angle is less than the threshold merge region angle.” Claim is vague and indefinite whether determining angle includes any algorithm and/or sensor.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamann et al. (US 2021/0001561 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hamann et al. teach a method of additively manufacturing a manufactured component utilizing an additive manufacturing system (see [00010]-[0132]), the method comprising:
supplying a feedstock material along a scan path of the additive manufacturing system (Fig. 1, item 7 -working plane, 12-building platform, 15-building material, 16- re-coater, and 17-heater) ; delivering, from an energy source of the additive manufacturing system and to an addition location along the scan path an amount of energy sufficient to form a melt pool of the feedstock material at the addition location (Fig. 1 item 17;[0013]-[0041][0044]-[0065],[0071] [0126], discloses supplying energy to the powder material at the material location); during the delivering the amount of energy, moving the addition location along the scan path to move the melt pool along the scan path and define a consolidated material track from the feedstock material (it is noted that claim is silent to what is being moved as identified above, however, Hamann et al. teach moving beam bundle along solidification path see claim 1), and a set of energy introduction parameter values is specified for the end point of the at least one solidification path, said set of energy introduction parameter values causing a reference value for the radiation powder per unit area in the radiation impact area of the beam bundle on the building material which is lower than the reference value for the radiation powder per unit area at other locations of the solidification path, and in which control data corresponding to the at least one data model generated in the second step are providing for generating a control data set for the additive manufacturing device (see claim 1).
Because Hamann et al. disclose selectively varying energy as a function of position along the scan path (the location would inherently include merge and pre-merge regions as claimed), the controller taught by Hamann et al. similarly forms each track and layer based on adjusting process parameter value ([0008][0049],[0068],[0125]-[0129]; Figs. 2-6. Claim 1), thereby achieving increase in uniformity of the consolidated track as a function of position along a length of the scan path; and increase a uniformity of a consolidated material layer that is partially defined by the consolidated material track, therefore, there exist a determining step where that the melt pool is within a threshold proximity of a merge region of the manufactured component; and responsive to the determining that the melt pool is within the threshold proximity of the merge region, adjusting a process parameter value of the additive manufacturing system from a process parameter pre-merge-region value to a process parameter merge-region value that differs from the process parameter merge-region value.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamann et al. (US 2021/0001561 A1).
Regarding claim 1 - 8, Hamann et al. teach a method of additively manufacturing a manufactured component utilizing an additive manufacturing system (see [00010]-[0132]) as provided above, the method comprising:
supplying a feedstock material along a scan path of the additive manufacturing system (Fig. 1, item 7 -working plane, 12-building platform, 15-building material, 16- re-coater, and 17-heater) ; delivering, from an energy source of the additive manufacturing system and to an addition location along the scan path an amount of energy sufficient to form a melt pool of the feedstock material at the addition location (Fig. 1 item 17;[0013]-[0041][0044]-[0065],[0071] [0126], discloses supplying energy to the powder material at the material location); during the delivering the amount of energy, moving the addition location along the scan path to move the melt pool along the scan path and define a consolidated material track from the feedstock material (it is noted that claim is silent to what is being moved as identified above, however, Hamann et al. teach moving beam bundle along solidification path see claim 1), and a set of energy introduction parameter values is specified for the end point of the at least one solidification path, said set of energy introduction parameter values causing a reference value for the radiation powder per unit area in the radiation impact area of the beam bundle on the building material which is lower than the reference value for the radiation powder per unit area at other locations of the solidification path, and in which control data corresponding to the at least one data model generated in the second step are providing for generating a control data set for the additive manufacturing device (see claim 1).
Because Hamann et al. disclose selectively varying energy as a function of position along the scan path (the location would inherently include merge and pre-merge regions as claimed), the controller taught by Hamann et al. similarly forms each track and layer based on adjusting process parameter value ([0008][0049],[0068],[0125]-[0129]; Figs. 2-6. Claim 1), thereby achieving increase in uniformity of the consolidated track as a function of position along a length of the scan path; and increase a uniformity of a consolidated material layer that is partially defined by the consolidated material track, therefore, there exist a determining step where that the melt pool is within a threshold proximity of a merge region of the manufactured component; and responsive to the determining that the melt pool is within the threshold proximity of the merge region, adjusting a process parameter value of the additive manufacturing system from a process parameter pre-merge-region value to a process parameter merge-region value that differs from the process parameter merge-region value, as provided above in the 102(a)(1). Alternatively, even if one disagrees, there is sufficient suggestion or motivation provided by Hamann et al. to modify based on determining by adjusting process parameter value from process parameter pre-merge-region value to a process parameter merge-region, in order to efficiently form layers and desired structure.
Hamann et al. disclose selectively varying energy as a function of position as provided above,
claim limitation pertaining to wherein the determining includes determining that a distance between the melt pool and the merge region is less than a threshold distance; wherein the method includes repeating the moving to define a consolidated material layer that includes a corresponding plurality of consolidated material tracks; wherein the determining includes determining that at least one consolidated material track of the plurality of consolidated material tracks is less than a threshold distance from the merge region; wherein the method further includes repeating the moving to define a plurality of stacked consolidated material layers would have been obvious (see [0008][0049],[0068],[0125]-[0129]; Figs. 2-6. Claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hamann et al. teach suggest wherein the adjusting the process parameter value includes at least one of: (i) adjusting a magnitude of the amount of energy; (ii) adjusting an input power of the amount of energy; (iii) adjusting a spot size of the amount of energy (claim 13, Fig. 8 for speed); (iv) adjusting a speed of motion of the addition location along the scan path during the moving; (v) adjusting a hatch distance of the scan path relative to an adjacent scan path; (vi) adjusting a target overlap region dimension between the consolidated material track and an adjacent consolidated material track; and (vii) adjusting an angle of incidence between the amount of energy and the merge region (see [0034]-[0038], [0049], and [0128]-[0135] discloses adjusting speed, energy intensity, claim 5).
Claims 10 -14, 17-18, and 20, Hamann et al. teach suggest or provides suggestion for wherein the adjusting the process parameter value includes applying a process parameter value gradient within a transition region between a bulk deposition region and the merge region; wherein the adjusting the process parameter value includes adjusting based, at least in part, on a merge region angle of the merge region; wherein the adjusting the process parameter value includes adjusting based, at least in part, on a melt pool volume of the melt pool; wherein the adjusting the process parameter value includes adjusting based, at least in part, on a finite element analysis of the manufactured component; wherein the adjusting the process parameter value includes adjusting an orientation of the scan path within the merge region (see [0019], [0034]-[0038], [0049], [0066]-[0078], and [0128]-[0135] discloses adjusting speed, energy intensity, and claim 5); including computer program software ([0118]) for executing the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0390366 A1 – method and systems for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of material. ; US 2021/0379663 A1 – additive manufacturing method and additive manufacturing apparatus. US 20230040341 A1 - the energy beam of the primary and/or complementary beam can have a variable intensity and/or a variable spot size and spot geometries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights