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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-15, and 19-24 are pending. Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 16-18 are canceled. Claims 13-15 and 19-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 21-24 are new.
In view of the amendment, filed 02/06/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 11/17/2025:
Drawings, specification, and claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d)
Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections over Application No. 18224318
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/06/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18224318 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1, “means for rotating the bed” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a rotational motor (p. 17, second paragraph) and equivalents.
Claim interpretation is otherwise consistent with the prior Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 21-24 is/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.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "said rotation" in the last line. The claim recites “rotation of the bed” as well as “rotation of the beam target location and the powder depositor relative to the bed,” such that “said rotation” is unclear as to which instance of “rotation” is referenced.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the bed comprises rotational means for rotating the bed about the rotational axis.” Amended claim 1 recites that the apparatus comprises “means for rotating the bed.” As such, claim 4 is unclear as to whether the “rotational means” are different from or the same as the “means for rotating the bed” and whether/how the claim further limits claim 1.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends from amended claim 1 but fails to recite any further limitation to claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goodwin et al., US 20200346407 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Goodwin discloses an apparatus for the additive manufacturing of a component (Fig. 5, processing machine for forming three-dimensional part) comprising:
A bed (support surface 527E of support platform 527A, Fig. 5, [0138]-[0139]) for supporting the component (supports build chamber 527B containing powder/part, [0138]-[0139]), the bed rotatable about a rotational axis during the manufacture of the component (the support platform may be rotated about the rotation axis 526D along direction 525, Fig. 5, [0141]);
Means for rotating the bed (the platform is rotated at a substantially constant velocity by a mover, [0141]; the mover for rotational motion of the platform described as a rotary motor, [0059]-[0060]);
A powder depositor (powder depositor 518, Fig. 5, [0137]),
An energy beam source (irradiation device 522, Fig. 5, [0137]) for emitting a beam of energy towards a beam target location (an irradiation device irradiates a portion of the powder layer with an energy beam, [0004], [0143]); and
Control means (control system, [0137]) for adjusting the beam target location (for controlling the components of the processing machine to build the three dimensional object from the model, [0076], which requires adjusting the beam target location of the irradiation device for selective heating/melting, [0072]);
Wherein the rotation of the bed provides rotation of the beam target location and the powder depositor relative to the bed (the platform is configured to rotate during the manufacturing process relative to the powder depositor and irradiation device of the top assembly, [0140]-[0141], Fig. 5); and
Height-adjusting means (the support surface functions as an annular elevator platform moved vertically relative to the chamber walls, [0140]) for continuously adjusting a relative axial position of the bed and the powder depositor during said rotation (the platform is moved vertically in a continuous fashion and the platform is rotated at a substantially constant velocity, [0140]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 2, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to provide rotation of the beam target location and the powder depositor relative to the bed (the platform is configured to rotate relative to the powder depositor and irradiation device of the top assembly, Fig. 5, [0140]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 3, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, comprising a recoating and writing unit comprising the energy beam source and the powder depositor (comprises the irradiation device 522 and powder depositor 518, Fig. 5, [0137]), and wherein the recoating and writing unit is configured to rotate relative to the bed about the rotational axis (the platform is configured to rotate relative to the irradiation device and powder depositor about the rotational axis 526D, Fig. 5). Note that “optionally” does not require the remaining elements.
Regarding claim 4, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the bed comprises rotational means for rotating the bed about the rotational axis (the platform is rotated at a substantially constant velocity by a mover, [0141]; the mover for rotational motion of the platform described as a rotary motor, [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the height-adjusting means are configured to adjust the relative axial position of the bed and the powder depositor by moving the bed substantially vertically downwards during manufacture of the component (the support surface functions as an annular elevator platform moved vertically relative to the chamber walls, is slowly lowered during fabrication, [0140]).
Regarding claim 8, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the bed is substantially annular (Fig. 5, annular, [0139]-[0140], [0142]).
Regarding new claim 21, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the height-adjusting means are configured to adjust the relative axial position such that a working surface of the component defines a spiral or helix shape (the elevator support surface being slowly lowered in such a way to build the part(s) in a continuous helical layer that spirals on itself, [0140]).
Regarding new claim 22, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control means are configured to operate the powder depositor and the energy beam source to form the component as a single continuous layer extending helically throughout a height of the component (the elevator support surface being slowly lowered in such a way to build the part(s) in a continuous helical layer that spirals on itself, [0140]; the part is built by the powder depositor and irradiation device and thus the part being built in a continuous helical layer requires the controlled operation of the powder depositor and irradiation device to form the continuous helical layer).
Regarding new claim 24, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises at least one recoating and writing unit comprising the powder depositor and the energy beam source (comprises the irradiation device 522 and powder depositor 518, Fig. 5, [0137]), and wherein the height-adjusting means are configured to adjust the relative axial position by a distance of one layer thickness per recoating and writing unit per revolution of the bed (the elevator support surface being slowly lowered down by one layer thickness per revolution, [0140]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin et al., US 20200346407 A1, as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the substantially annular bed has an outer diameter (outer diameter defined by outer chamber wall 527D, Fig. 5) and an inner diameter (inner diameter defined by inner chamber wall 527C, Fig. 5), wherein the outer diameter is greater than the inner diameter (Fig. 5).
Goodwin is silent as to the outer diameter being greater than or equal to 3 times the inner diameter. However, Goodwin discloses the outer diameter being greater than at least 1 times the inner diameter (Fig. 5), as would necessarily be the case in order to define an area for a build space between the outer and inner walls (Fig. 5, [0139]). Goodwin describes the annular build chamber defined between the walls as “large” and suitable for building large parts that fit within the annular shape ([0142], [0144]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least the overlapping portion of the range in order to predictably ensure a large enough build space between the walls for building parts, e.g., a large annular component ([0142], [0144]), in the annular space.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In this case, the device of Goodwin including the outer and inner walls defining respective outer and inner diameters with a build area in between would not have performed differently if the relative diameters were sized as claimed.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin et al., US 20200346407 A1, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Thorson et al., US 20170190112 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the substantially annular bed has an outer diameter (outer diameter defined by outer chamber wall 527D, Fig. 5) and an inner diameter (inner diameter defined by inner chamber wall 527C, Fig. 5). Goodwin is silent as to the annular bed being adjustable to change the outer and/or inner diameter.
In the analogous art, Thorson discloses an additive manufacturing device including an annular bed for making annular parts (Figs. 1-2, Abstract, [0001]). Thorson teaches the outer and inner retaining walls (118, 120, Fig. 2) being removably disposed on the platform 102 ([0022]-[0023]) or being formed on the platform by selective laser fusing/printing ([0023]). Either case would result in the annular bed being adjustable to change the outer and/or inner diameter via changing the outer/inner wall(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the annular bed of Goodwin such that it was adjustable to change the outer and/or inner diameter as taught by Thorson in order to provide the capability of redefining the annular build space according to a given part shape.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin et al., US 20200346407 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Holford et al., US 20180345373 A1.
Regarding new claim 23, Goodwin discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Goodwin is silent as to a rotation sensor configured to determine a rate of the relative rotation, wherein the height-adjusting means are configured to adjust the relative axial position at a rate dependent upon the rate of the relative rotation determined by the rotation sensor.
In the analogous art, Holford discloses a rotating additive manufacturing device (Abstract, Figs. 2-3). Holford teaches the device includes a rotation sensor configured to determine a rate of the relative rotation (one or more rotary encoders, visual or sensor, to measure and determine the rotational speed of the rotating build platform, [0039]). Holford teaches the determination of the rotational speed can be used to calibrate other components of the apparatus for constant properties of the built part ([0011], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goodwin to include a rotation sensor configured to determine a rate of the relative rotation in order to provide the capability of calibrating operation of other components of the apparatus in accordance with the actual rotation speed, as taught by Holford. The height-adjusting means of the combination would then be configured to adjust the relative axial position (Goodwin: configured to move the elevator support surface vertically, [0140]) at a rate dependent upon the rate of the relative rotation determined by the rotation sensor (Goodwin: the support surface being slowly lowered by one layer thickness per revolution, [0140], i.e., at a rate dependent on the rotation rate of the platform).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-10, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thorson does not disclose the amended limitation directed to continuously adjusting a relative axial position of the bed and the powder depositor during said rotation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goodwin, as applied above. Goodwin discloses rotating and lowering a platform/bed continuously.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160167160 A1, Hellestam discloses a relevant rotary powder bed additive manufacturing device where the bed is lowered while rotating.
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754