DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2023 and 5/7/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an (AM) component”, and it should be “an additive manufactured (AM) component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0052946) (hereinafter “Horner”) in view of Soucy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0271221) (hereinafter “Soucy”).
Regarding claim 1 and corresponding system claims 9 and 10, Horner teaches aH method of manufacturing an (AM) component, the method comprising: generating a computer-aided design (CAD) model of target AM component having a target physical profile; (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - computer used to design an additive manufactured component, where component has a nominal, i.e. target, physical profile)
predicting deformation of a target area that is expected to realize deformation; (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - expected deflection, i.e. deformation of target that is expected is predicted in model; Para. 14 - - deformation is predicted)
determining a pre-deformed profile of…that are to be formed in the target area based on the predicted deformation of the target area and that are expected to deform into a target profile indicating the target physical profile is met; ()
and performing an AM component build to build the AM component and forming pre-deformed witness lines having the pre-deformed profile in the target area. (Fig. 1 - - manufacturing uses deformation detection using shape models for target area)
But Horner does not explicitly teach witness lines
However, Soucy teaches witness lines (Para. 11 - - witness mark/lines are formed during an additive manufacturing)
Horner and Soucy are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain additive manufacturing processes where parts of the manufactured object/component are identified.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Horner, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Soucy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a visual indicator to determine where parts are separated from other portion of the additive manufactured component, as suggested by Soucy (Para. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Horner teaches wherein the pre-deformed witness lines deform into an expected profile indicating the target component has realized its predicted distortion to reach a final shape that yields the target physical profile. (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - deformation/distortion amount/manner is predicted where deflection model takes into account the final shape of the manufactured component according to the target physical profile)
Regarding claim 3, Horner teaches wherein the pre-deformed witness lines deform from the pre-deformed profile while settling during the AM component build prior to applying a thermal treatment to the AM component. (Para. 20 - - manufactured component is deformed during operational exposure such as heating, i.e. thermal treatment)
Regarding claim 4, Horner teaches wherein the pre-deformed witness lines deform from the pre-deformed profile during the thermal treatment. (Para. 20 - - manufactured component is deformed during operational exposure such as heating, i.e. thermal treatment)
Regarding claim 5, Soucy teaches wherein the pre-deformed witness lines deform from the pre-deformed profile while settling after completing the thermal treatment. (Para. 11 - - witness marks/lines are used to determine where to separate part from component, where Horner teaches thermal treatment)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a visual indicator to determine where parts are separated from other portion of the additive manufactured component, as suggested by Soucy (Para. 11).
Regarding claim 6 and corresponding system claim 9, Soucy teaches wherein the target physical profile is confirmed in response the deformed profile of the witness lines matching the target profile. (Para. 11 - - witness marks/lines are used to determine where to separate part from component, where Horner teaches target, i.e. nominal, profile)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a visual indicator to determine where parts are separated from other portion of the additive manufactured component, as suggested by Soucy (Para. 11).
Regarding claim 7. The method of claim 2, further comprising: generating a build file based on the CAD model, the target area, and the pre-deformed profile of the witness lines; (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - data file is used by additive manufacturing process including expected deformation, where Stoucy teaches witness lines)
loading the build file into an AM build machine; and performing the AM build based on the build file, wherein the AM build machine forms the pre-deformed witness lines having the pre-deformed profile in the target area. (Fig. 1 - - manufacturing uses deformation detection using shape models for target area, where Stoucy teaches witness lines)
Regarding claim 11, Horner teaches wherein each of the pre-deformed witness lines includes layers of AM material deposited at a first target region of the target area which are separated by a space that excludes the AM material. (Fig. 3, 4 - - additive manufactured component includes areas where AM material is deposited, and space that excludes the AM material in order to build the AM material with a certain shape)
Regarding claim 12, Horner teaches wherein the AM material is a low- density material. (Para. 20 - - composite, i.e. low-density material, can be used)
Regarding claim 13, Horner teaches wherein the low-density material includes one or a combination of a thermoplastic material, polylactic acid, and a microsphere composite material. (Para. 20 - - composite material can be used)
Regarding claim 14, Horner teaches wherein the AM material is a high- density material. (Para. 20 - - metal, i.e. high-density material, can be used)
Regarding claim 15, Horner teaches wherein the high-density alloy material includes one or a combination of Incone1625(IN625), Incone1718 (IN718), Hastelloy X (Hast-X), a nickel-base (Ni-base) superalloy, 17-4PH stainless steel, and Titanium (Ti). (Para. 20 - - metal can be used)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0238755 by Hovis et al., which discloses making and monitoring components with integral strain indicators (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0088881 by Kim et al., which discloses simulation-assisted additive manufacturing (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights