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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 21, 29, and 36. Currently claims 21, 22, 25, 29-33, 36, 38 and 40 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21, 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck et al. (US 2015/0202716 A1) in view of Philippi et al. (US 2009/0152771 A1) and Ueno (US 2003/0173714 A1).
With regards to claim 21, Bruck teaches an apparatus for making a workpiece such as an airfoil for a turbine vane or blade (Abstract, ¶ 0001) comprising a utilizing selective laser melting or sintering where an image forming apparatus such as a mask (70) is used to generate a patterned image to be solidified (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶ 0016). Bruck teaches that the produced part may define a gradual twist from the platform to the tip of the blade or vane, and that to do so the image forming device or mask may be rotated about a central axis (B) as the airfoil is developed in layers (¶ 0020). Bruck is silent with respect to the elements typical of a selective laser sintering or melting or additive manufacturing apparatus including the platform. Bruck is also silent with respect to a controller configured to control actuators for relative movement of apparatus components.
In a similar field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Philippi discusses a common and well known device for selective laser melting or sintering (Abstract, Fig. 1, ¶ 0017). The device is well-known to include the energy source (6), optical device which can be driven to provide the desired pattern (7) and a platform (3) movable along a build axis all of which is under the supervision of a controller (9) to execute the build process (Fig. 1, ¶ 0017-0018). Philippi teaches that when utilizing a mask, such as the mask of Bruck, it is known to utilize a lamp in the alternative to a laser (¶ 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a platform movable along a build axis with a first actuator coupled to the platform and under the control of a controller along with a second actuator coupled to the image forming device of Bruck which is taught to be rotatable under the control of the controller as both Bruck and Philippi both relate to select laser sintering or melting devices presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and Bruck does not teach the overall additive manufacturing device for producing the part layer-by-layer other than the rotation of the image forming device (mask) prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art. As discussed in Philippi the use of a lamp and mask is known and constitutes a radiant energy source including a lamp along with an image forming apparatus configured to receive the source beam from the radiant energy source to generate a patterned image.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ueno teaches an additive manufacturing device that demonstrates the known technique of arranging an excitation source (1), a condensing lens (2), a pattern shaping mask (3) and a projection lens (4) above the layer to be shaped in order to allow for patterned curing of the resin layer (Abstract, ¶ 0080). Ueno teaches that known excitation sources include ultraviolet lamps (¶ 0008, 0019) which are cheaper than ultraviolet laser devices and can be utilized in conjunction with shaping masks. The masks form a desired image with a given pixel array (¶ 0061-0064) selected by the user. The entire unit of the excitation source, mask and lenses can be movable as needed (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a similar configuration of a UV lamp, mask and lens that is movable projecting an image with a desired pixel array in the modified device of Bruck in view of Philippi as all three relate to additive manufacturing presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so utilizes a known improvement to a similar device yielding predictable results.
With regards to the limitation that the relative angular orientation of the first layer to second layer are selected based on the surface quality of the workpiece, the twist discussed in Bruck determines the amount of twist in the airfoil which is a surface quality.
With regards to claim 22, as seen in Figure 1 of Philippi the stage moves downwards to add layers.
With regards to claim 25, the second actuator is necessary to cause rotation of the mask taught by Bruck. The particular location of the movement device for the mask system in both Philippi and Ueno is not shown; however, barring a showing of unexpected results the particular relative location of the actuator that effects movement presents a mere rearrangement of parts without modifying function establishing a case of prima facie obviousness as discussed in MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to place the actuator above the projector to ensure it is not in the optical path which is projected downwards.
Claim(s) 29-33, 36, 38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck et al. (US 2015/0202716 A1) in view of Philippi et al. (US 2009/0152771 A1) and Ueno (US 2003/0173714 A1) and Shkolnik et al. (US 2005/0248062 A1).
With regards to claims 29-31, 36 and 40, Bruck teaches an apparatus for making a workpiece such as an airfoil for a turbine vane or blade (Abstract, ¶ 0001) comprising a utilizing selective laser melting or sintering where an image forming apparatus such as a mask (70) is used to generate a patterned image to be solidified (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶ 0016). Bruck teaches that the produced part may define a gradual twist from the platform to the tip of the blade or vane, and that to do so the image forming device or mask may be rotated about a central axis (B) as the airfoil is developed in layers (¶ 0020). Bruck is silent with respect to the elements typical of a selective laser sintering or melting or additive manufacturing apparatus including the platform. Bruck is also silent with respect to a controller configured to control actuators for relative movement of apparatus components.
In a similar field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Philippi discusses a common and well known device for selective laser melting or sintering (Abstract, Fig. 1, ¶ 0017). The device is well-known to include the energy source (6), optical device which can be driven to provide the desired pattern (7) and a platform (3) movable along a build axis all of which is under the supervision of a controller (9) to execute the build process (Fig. 1, ¶ 0017-0018). Philippi teaches that when utilizing a mask, such as the mask of Bruck, it is known to utilize a lamp in the alternative to a laser (¶ 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a platform movable along a build axis with a first actuator coupled to the platform and under the control of a controller along with a second actuator coupled to the image forming device of Bruck which is taught to be rotatable under the control of the controller as both Bruck and Philippi both relate to select laser sintering or melting devices presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and Bruck does not teach the overall additive manufacturing device for producing the part layer-by-layer other than the rotation of the image forming device (mask) prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art. As discussed in Philippi the use of a lamp and mask is known and constitutes a radiant energy source including a lamp along with an image forming apparatus configured to receive the source beam from the radiant energy source to generate a patterned image.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ueno teaches an additive manufacturing device that demonstrates the known technique of arranging an excitation source (1), a condensing lens (2), a pattern shaping mask (3) and a projection lens (4) above the layer to be shaped in order to allow for patterned curing of the resin layer (Abstract, ¶ 0080). Ueno teaches that known excitation sources include ultraviolet lamps (¶ 0008, 0019) which are cheaper than ultraviolet laser devices and can be utilized in conjunction with shaping masks. The masks form a desired image with a given pixel array (¶ 0061-0064) selected by the user. The entire unit of the excitation source, mask and lenses can be movable as needed (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a similar configuration of a UV lamp, mask and lens that is movable projecting an image with a desired pixel array in the modified device of Bruck in view of Philippi as all three relate to additive manufacturing presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so utilizes a known improvement to a similar device yielding predictable results.
With regards to the limitation that the relative angular orientation of the first layer to second layer are selected based on the surface quality of the workpiece, the twist discussed in Bruck determines the amount of twist in the airfoil which is a surface quality.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing apparatuses, Shkolnik teaches an algorithm that calculates the cross-sectional area of active pixels such that the cross-sectional area exactly corresponds to the resolution of the pixels within the projected image ([0041]). Having the cross-section area of active pixels correspond to pixel resolution refines the rastering of the outer and inner contours in the sectional planes of the object to enhance resolution in the construction plane while maintaining a large construction area ([0025] It is an object of the invention to provide a process or a device which can enhance the resolution in the construction plane, while maintaining the same large construction area, many times in the sub- pixel range, i.e. to refine the rastering of the outer and inner contours in the sectional planes of the object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the controller of Gardiner modified with Smith be configured to implement an optimization algorithm to minimize a number or area of the pixels crossing a periphery of an edge of the first layer of the workpiece, as suggested by Shkolnik, for the benefit of enhancing resolution in the construction plane while maintaining a large construction area.
With regards to the particular limitation in claim 31 that the material is a photopolymer, this represents a limitation of the material worked upon by the apparatus and not a structural limitation of the device itself.
With regards to claim 32, as discussed in the rejection of claim 29 above the consideration of pixels and the edges of the image are within the level of one of ordinary skill and the particular degree of angular orientation difference between layers determines the degree of twist of the airfoil.
With regards to claim 33, the manner of operating the device such as the ability of a material to solidify represents a limitation on the manner of using the device and not a structural limitation of the controller itself. As the controller of the applied prior art controls the curing source and movement of the materials it is capable of working upon a curable material.
With regards to claim 38, as seen in Figure 1 of Philippi the stage moves downwards to add layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
