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 .
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 2/27/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 38, 52, and 104 are amended; Claim 26 is canceled; Claim 125 is newly added. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 27, 35, 38, 44, 48, 51-52, 104, and 125 are currently pending, claims 52 and 104 are withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 27, 35, 38, 44, 48, 51, and 125 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 first recites “selectively establishing a reactive atmosphere within the build chamber that causes a chemical reaction to harden at least one select portion of each layer in multiple select layers of the plurality of layers in conjunction with the melting of the metal material and subsequent solidification of the molten material.” This limitation is not interpreted to require deposition of molten metal. Rather, the claim recitation reciting a step of depositing molten metal occurs only in a non-reactive atmosphere and therefore, the phrase “in conjunction with the melting of the metal material” may be interpreted as drawn to hardening a portion of the already deposited material or alternatively, a separate melting step lacking antecedent basis.
The subsequent limitation “the selectively establishing of the reactive atmosphere to deposit molten material that is hardened in the select portions of the multiple select layers of the plurality of layers are repeated during the melting of the metal material until the metal article is complete” is indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis for a separate step of depositing molten material in a reactive atmosphere regardless of how the above limitation is interpreted. Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 27, 35, 38, 44, 48, 51, and 125 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is amended to recite a step of “melting a metal material using an energy source such that molten material is deposited in a plurality of layers to build the metal article in conjunction with controlling translational movement of at least one of the metal article and the energy source based on predetermined locations for deposition of the molten material.” This limitation is interpreted to encompass a range of melting and depositing techniques, including for example, powder bed fusion-type additive manufacturing such as selective laser melting as well as techniques such as direct metal deposition, molten metal deposition, and build-up welding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13, 18-19, 26-27, 35, 44, 48, and 125 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2021/0039164)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Morton teaches a method of additive manufacturing and selective hardening of a metal article, the method comprising steps of: injecting a first gas into an additive manufacturing build chamber, wherein the first gas may be an inert gas such as argon (i.e. a non-reactive gas), depositing a first layer, of a plurality of layers, of metal-containing powder on a build platform, selectively melting the metal-containing powder material using a laser controlled with translation movement relative to the powder and thus depositing molten material to form a first solidified layer of a three-dimensional part comprising a plurality of layers, selectively injecting a second gas into the build chamber over the surface of a layer of the three-dimensional part, the second gas being chemically reactive with the metal-containing powder so as to cause a chemical reaction to harden at least a portion of subsequent layers of a plurality of layers with steps of melting and solidification. (claims 1-12; para. 4, 34-36, 76, 84, 90-93; Fig. 14).
Morton teaches a wherein the method selectively nitrides one or more of a plurality of additively manufactured layers, wherein nitride layers, embedded or on a surface of the article, may have a tailored hardness allowing the method to tailor an article with selectively more ductile portions and other less ductile, harder portions. (para. 36, 74-77). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selectively establish a reactive atmosphere within the build chamber that causes a chemical reaction to harden at least one select portion of each layer in multiple select layers of the plurality of layers in conjunction with the melting and subsequent solidification of the molten material, in order to obtain an additively manufactured article with tailored portions of ductility and hardness properties.
Furthermore, Morton teaches wherein the steps of establishing a non-reactive atmosphere and depositing molten metal material (non-hardened) in selected portions/layers and establishing a reactive atmosphere and selectively reacting/hardening selected portions/layers may be repeated to form tailored structures having hardened and non-hardened portions. (see Fig. 14-15; para. 34, 76-77, 84, 90-93). Additionally, Morton teaches that the hardening step in a reactive atmosphere comprises a melting or re-melting of material in the reactive atmosphere, and thus, comprises a melting and subsequent solidification of the molten material as instantly claimed. (see, e.g., para. 76, 92).
Thus, Morton is deemed to explicitly teach, or alternatively make obvious for the purposes of forming a tailored additively manufactured structure with hardened or non-hardened portions, the amended claim limitation “wherein the establishing of the non-reactive atmosphere to deposit molten material that is not hardened in other portions of the multiple select layers and in other layers of the plurality of layers and the selectively establishing of the reactive atmosphere to deposit molten material that is hardened in the select portions of the multiple select layers of the plurality of layers are repeated during the melting of the metal material until the metal article is complete.”
With respect to Claim 2, Morton teaches wherein the non-reactive gas is an inert gas. (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 34-35).
With respect to Claims 4-5, Morton teaches wherein the metal material comprises a metal-containing powder, for example, a titanium alloy powder (Ti-6Al-4V powder). (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 45-46).
With respect to Claim 7, Morton teaches wherein translation movement and operational parameters of the of the laser energy source are controlled to manage the chemical reaction that hardens the at least one select portion of the multiple select layers of the metal article. (para. 45-47, 50, 65-67, 84, 90-93).
With respect to Claim 9, Morton teaches wherein the translation movement of the energy source comprises linear movement in at least one of an X-axis and/or Y-axis. (see Fig. 15, demonstrating an X or Y axis translation movement; see, e.g., para. 51-52 and 66 drawn to laser scan speed and direction).
With respect to Claim 13, Morton teaches first providing an inert gas atmosphere, then selectively introducing a reactive gas sufficient to cause the desired chemical reaction, thereby resulting in an atmosphere comprises both the inert gas and reactive, gas, deemed to constitute “a predetermined reactant gas mixture of at least one inert gas and at least one reactant gas.” Moreover, as Morton teaches controlled flow of the reactant gas (see, e.g., para. 92) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate mixture of the inert and reactant gas such that the desired chemical reaction taught by Morton may be achieved, resulting in portions of the additively manufactured article having tailored hardness. (see also above rejections).
With respect to Claim 18, Morton teaches wherein slicing of a three-dimensional digital model is performed, corresponding to the desired build. (para. 48). Thus, Morton teaches wherein the select portion of the metal article that is hardened is based on a corresponding location in a three-dimensional digital model of the metal article that is designated for hardening. Furthermore, as Morton teaches using a digital model for carrying out the method of additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to designate the desired portions of the metal article subject to selective hardening in corresponding portion(s) of the digital model, in order to efficiently and effectively carryout the method.
With respect to Claim 19, Morton teaches wherein the method steps may be repeated and an additively manufactured article having tailored portions/layers of hardened material is formed. (see rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of Morton wherein the at least one select portion of each layer in multiple select layers of the metal article that are hardened comprise one or more areas in which portions of consecutive layers are hardened, in order to form thicker hardened regions. In other words, each layer in the additive manufacturing process of Morton has a predetermined thickness. Therefore, in order to form an article wherein a desired hardened portion is thicker than an individual layer thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of consecutive layers having hardened portions, in order to form the desired tailored article.
With respect to Claim 26, Morton teaches wherein the establishing of the non-reactive atmosphere and the selectively establishing of a reactive atmosphere may be repeated during the method comprising a plurality of layer forming steps (each comprising depositing and melting portions of powder) until the article is complete. (see, e.g., Fig. 14).
With respect to Claim 27, Morton teaches a method comprising means for providing a first inert gas into the build chamber to establish an inert/non-reactive atmosphere and means for selectively providing a second, reactant, gas into the build chamber. (para. 4, 34-35, 48; Fig. 11-14). Thus, Morton is deemed to teach or render obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the limitations of claim 27. In other words, while Morton does not specifically refer to a first gas supply, the reference teaches supplying a first inert gas into a build chamber to establish a non-reactive atmosphere in the chamber and thus, necessarily comprises receiving an inert gas from at least one first gas supply, or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such steps, in order to be able to supply inert gas to the build chamber, with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 35, Morton teaches forming a melt pool (see para. 47) and therefore, is deemed to teach forming a melt pool as the molten material is deposited for a present layer on a substrate or on the metal article.
With respect to Claim 44, Morton teaches a method comprising means for providing a first inert gas into the build chamber to establish an inert/non-reactive atmosphere and means for selectively providing a second, reactant, gas into the build chamber. (rejection of claims 27 and 38 above; para. 4, 34-35, 48; Fig. 11-14). Morton further teaches that the processing parameters, such as nitrogen argon mixtures, may be controlled to obtain desired articles/designs. (see para. 35). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receive at least one predetermined reactant gas mixture from at least one mixed gas supply and route the reactant gas mixture to the build chamber to establish a reactive atmosphere for obtaining the desired article/design.
With respect to Claim 48, Morton teaches wherein the establishing of an inert/non-reactive atmosphere and selectively establishing the reactive atmosphere may be alternated and each step repeated a plurality of times during the method of melting metal material to form a plurality of layers of an article having tailored hardened portions and portions with non-hardened properties/structures. (see para. 14, 84, 86). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of Morton wherein the at least one select portion of each layer in multiple select layers of the metal article that are hardened comprise one or more areas in which portions of consecutive layers are hardened, in order to form thicker hardened regions. (see rejection of claim 19 above). In other words, each layer in the additive manufacturing process of Morton has a predetermined thickness. Therefore, in order to form an article wherein a desired hardened portion is thicker than an individual layer thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of consecutive layers having hardened portions, in order to form the desired tailored article.
With respect to Claim 125, Morton teaches separate steps of forming non-hardened portions/layers in a non-reactive atmosphere and selective hardened portions/layers in a reactive atmosphere (see rejections above; Figs. 14-15) wherein the translation movement of the metal article and/or energy source would necessarily be paused for the change to a reactive atmosphere and re-heating of selected portions. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pause the translational movement during such time no additional material is being deposited, in particular, where the atmosphere is being change to a reactive atmosphere and vice versa, in order to prevent unwanted heating of metal material.
Claim(s) 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2021/0039164), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kleinhans et al. (US 2022/0118513).
With respect to Claim 38, Morton teaches a method comprising means for providing a first inert gas into the build chamber to establish an inert/non-reactive atmosphere and means for selectively providing a second, reactant, gas into the build chamber. (para. 4, 34-35, 48; Fig. 11-14). Thus, Morton is deemed to teach or render obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the limitations of claim 38. In other words, while Morton does not specifically refer to a first gas supply and/or second gas supply comprising the respective first and second gases, the reference teaches supplying a first inert gas into a build chamber to establish a non-reactive atmosphere in the chamber and supplying a second reactant gas into the build chamber to establish the reactive atmosphere, and thus, necessarily comprises receiving an inert gas from at least one first gas supply, receiving at least one predetermined reactant gas from at least one second gas supply, or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such steps, in order to be able to supply inert gas to the build chamber, with a predictable result of success.
Morton is silent as to mixing the at least one inert gas and the at least one second reactant gas and routing the mixture to the build chamber to establish the reactive atmosphere.
Kleinhans teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising selective laser melting, the method comprising supplying a reactant gas mixture. (para. 1-3, 31, 62). In particular, Kleinhans teaches “The method according to the invention proceeds in a particularly controlled manner if the particles are surrounded by a substantially inert atmosphere, which limits or completely inhibits the reaction of the particles, until the targeted initiation of an oxidation reaction or until the supply of the oxidant and/or until the initiation of the above-mentioned energy input. This may be achieved, for example, in that the process gas carrying the particles is itself an inert gas and in that in the supply of the process gas and/or in the filter chamber, mixing with oxidants potentially contained therein is avoided as far as possible except for the oxidants specifically added, or in that the supply of the process gas and/or the filter chamber themselves contain inert gas, for example are flooded therewith. If the process gas itself is not an inert gas, it may be mixed with inert gas in the supply and/or in the filter chamber to such an extent that a reaction of the particles with their particle environment is reduced or completely inhibited until the targeted oxidant addition.” (para. 11).
In short, Kleinhans teaches mixing a first inert gas supply and a second reactant gas supply to form a gas mixture for forming a reactive atmosphere, the mixture allowing more control over the intended reaction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Morton, to include a step of mixing the at least one inert gas from the at least one first gas supply and the at least one reactant gas from the at least one second gas supply to form a predetermined reactant gas mixture and routing/supplying the predetermined reactant gas mixture to the build chamber to establish the reactive atmosphere, as taught by Kleinhans, in order to form a reactive atmosphere having enhanced control over the reaction/reactivity, for example, moderating the rate or amount of reaction.
Claim(s) 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2021/0039164), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Czinger et al. (US 2022/0066426)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 51, Morton is silent as to a step of heat treating the additively manufactured article.
Czinger teaches a method and apparatus for additive manufacturing a metal article, including techniques such as “freeform fabrication, fused deposition modeling, electron beam melting, laminated object manufacturing, binder jetting, selective laser sintering, laser powder bed fusion also referred to as direct metal laser sintering or melting or as selective laser melting, and stereolithography, cold spray deposition, directed energy deposition,” wherein the method may further include heat treatment of an additively manufactured article in order to provide stress relief or to tailor the mechanical properties and associated structure, for example, hardening heat treatment. (para. 90-93, 403). The reference further teaches wherein the additively manufactured part may be subjected to surface finishing and/or machining to obtain a desired surface finish and shape. (para. 406-411).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Morton, to carry out a heat treatment of the additively manufactured article, as taught by Czinger, in order to tailor (i.e. optimize) the hardening of the select portions of the metal article hardened during the additive manufacturing process, thereby resulting in an article with improved mechanical properties.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a machining step, as taught by Czinger, in order to improve the final surface finish of the article, for example, improved uniformity and smoothness. (see Czinger, para. 407).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13, 18-19, 26-27, 35, 38, 44, 48, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2021/0039164) in view of Shimizu (US 2025/0250681)(previously cited) with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13, 18-19, 26-27, 35, 44, 48, and 125, Morton (US 2021/0039164) in view of Kleinhans et al. (US 2022/0118513) with respect to claim 38, and Morton (US 2021/0039164) in view of Czinger et al. (US 2022/0066426) and Shimizu (US 2025/0250681) with respect to claim 51.
In the alternative to the above rejections of Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13, 18-19, 26-27, 35, 38, 44, 48, 51, and 125, Morton teaches a powder bed fusion type of additive manufacturing process, wherein metal powder material is deposited and then selectively melted with a laser. If the Claim 1 limitation “melting a metal material using an energy source to deposit molten material” is alternatively interpreted to require wherein the metal material is supplied simultaneously with melting with an energy source (see also 112(b) rejection above), Morton teaches a technique differing from the instant limitation.
Shimizu teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising selectively reacting a metal material with a reactant, wherein the metal may comprise a titanium alloy and the reactant may be a nitriding agent, and wherein the additive manufacturing process may comprise powder bed fusion or directed energy deposition. (claims 31-35; para. 48-50). Thus, both Shimizu and Morton are drawn to additive manufacturing methods that may comprise nitriding a titanium base material, wherein the additive manufacturing process may comprise powder bed fusion and Shimizu further teaches that powder bed fusion technique may be substituted for a directed energy deposition process (i.e. wherein powder is supplied and melted with an energy source simultaneously to deposit molten material in a plurality of layers).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process of Morton, for a directed energy deposition process wherein powder is supplied and melted with an energy source simultaneously to deposit molten material in a plurality of layers, as taught by Shimizu, in order to carry out the method of additive manufacturing with selective hardening. The substitution of one process for another having the same purpose and result would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 38 over Morton has been fully considered and is found persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim. However, after further search and consideration a new grounds of rejection over Morton in view of Kleinhans is made, as detailed above. Applicant’s arguments to the extent they address Claim 38 are therefore, moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13, 18-19, 26-27, 35, 44, and 48 over Morton, Claim 51 over Morton in view of Czinger have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Morton fails to teach the features of the amended claim 1, largely repeating the limitations of claim 1 and portions of the specification and arguing that the method of Morton differs from that claimed. (See Remarks, pgs. 10-12). These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Claim 1 first recites “selectively establishing a reactive atmosphere within the build chamber that causes a chemical reaction to harden at least one select portion of each layer in multiple select layers of the plurality of layers in conjunction with the melting of the metal material and subsequent solidification of the molten material.” This limitation is not interpreted to require deposition of molten metal. Rather, the claim recitation reciting a step of depositing molten metal occurs only in a non-reactive atmosphere and therefore, the term “in conjunction” is interpreted as drawn to referring to a portion of the deposited material.
Morton teaches wherein the steps of establishing a non-reactive atmosphere and depositing molten metal material (non-hardened) in selected portions/layers and establishing a reactive atmosphere and selectively reacting/hardening selected portions/layers may be repeated to form tailored structures having hardened and non-hardened portions. (see Fig. 14-15; para. 34, 76-77, 84, 90-93).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in the Figure, Morton clearly forms selected areas that hardened by reaction with the reactive atmosphere.
Additionally, Morton teaches that the hardening step in a reactive atmosphere comprises a melting or re-melting of material in the reactive atmosphere, and thus, comprises a melting and subsequent solidification of the molten material as instantly claimed. (see, e.g., para. 76, 92). Thus, as Claim 1 is not interpreted to require a separate deposition step in the reactive atmosphere (see 112(b) rejection above) the reference teaches the claimed method. Additionally, even if Claim 1 was interpreted to require a “melting of the metal material and subsequent solidification of the molten material” step separate from the melting and deposition in a non-reactive atmosphere, Morton meets the instant limitation as the material is again melted and subsequently solidified in the reactive atmosphere and all of the above steps may be repeated.
In summary, Morton is deemed to explicitly teach, or alternatively make obvious for the purposes of forming a tailored additively manufactured structure with hardened or non-hardened portions, the amended claim limitation “wherein the establishing of the non-reactive atmosphere to deposit molten material that is not hardened in other portions of the multiple select layers and in other layers of the plurality of layers and the selectively establishing of the reactive atmosphere to deposit molten material that is hardened in the select portions of the multiple select layers of the plurality of layers are repeated during the melting of the metal material until the metal article is complete.”
With respect to the rejection of Morton in view of Shimizu, Applicant’s arguments restate portions of the Shimizu reference and the instant claims and specification but does not clearly set forth the alleged differences of the prior art and the instant claims. That is, Applicant does not appear to connect, in any way, the recited passages and claim limitations, but instead makes conclusory remarks that the limitations are not disclosed. As a result, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights