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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2023 and 05/08/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II: claims 24-34, drawn to a method of additively manufacturing a build piece and a support structure for mechanically supporting at least part of the build piece, in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-23 and 35-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I: claims 1-23, drawn to a device for processing an additively manufactured component and support structure, and Group III: claims 35-45, drawn to a product, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for additive manufacturing for processing an additively manufactured component and support structure, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Therefore, claims 24-34 are currently under examination on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 25-27 and 30-32 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 25 and 30 recite the following terms, "(VED)" in line 2, and "(J/mm3)" in line 3, in parenthesis, renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear whether the term in the parenthesis is optional or required by the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 26-27 and 31-32 are being dependent on claim 25 and 30 respectively and therefore are also rejected for the same reason applied to claim 25 and 30.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24, 28-29, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Eahab Nagi El Naga [US20180311732A1] (provided in the IDS, Naga hereafter).
Regarding claim 24, Naga discloses a method of additively manufacturing a build piece (see Naga’s element 2005 in FIG. 20) and a support structure (see Naga’s element 2000 in FIG. 20) for mechanically supporting at least part of the build piece (support structures for additive manufacturing and removal of support structures from build pieces, see Naga’s abstract, para [0001], FIG. 20), the method comprising:
layered fusing of a powdered build material to form the support structure (fused - powder support structures, (see Naga’s FIG. 20 and [0110]) support structure 2000 including resonant structures, including upward extension 2009 and downward extension 2011, (see Naga’s [0123], [0124]), as indicated by Naga’s FIG. 20, the support structure 2000 is formed as a layered structure including upper and lower layers 2009, 2011 (see Naga’s [0123])); and
layered fusing of the powdered build material to form the build piece (a slice of build piece 109 has been fused, deposited and fused slices in multiple layers, see Naga’s element 109 in FIG. 1A and element 2005 in FIG. 20, [0055]);
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the support structure 2000 (see Naga’s FIG. 20) is formed with a failure zone (the ends and bases of the extensions to break away from the interfaces, thus removing support structure 2000 from build piece 2005 and build plate 2001 (see Naga’s [0124])) proximal to the build piece (see Naga’s element 2005 in FIG. 20), wherein the failure zone is configured to structurally fail and separate from the build piece when subjected to resonation by a resonation device (support structure 2000 including resonant structures, build piece 2005 (see Naga’s [0123], FIG. 20), and each upward extension 2009 and each downward extension 2011 is a resonant structure, resonate at a resonance frequency, and the stress caused by applying the resonance frequency causes the ends and bases of the extensions to break away from the interfaces (see Naga’s [0124], FIG. 20), thus removing support structure 2000 from build piece 2005 and build plate 2001 (see Naga’s [0129]). A vibrator 2200 applies a resonance frequency for removing support structures including resonant structures, build piece that have been removed. The induced vibration can cause the support structure to vibrate with increasing amplitude until the ends break off from the build piece and the build plate (see Naga’s [0130])).
Regarding claim 28, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 are applicable to claim 28, wherein Naga discloses the failure zone is one or more layers 2009 and 2011 of the support structure 2000 that are in contact with and are to be removed from the build piece (support structure 2000 including resonant structures, (see Naga’s [0123], FIG. 20), and each upward extension 2009 and each downward extension 2011 is a resonant structure, resonate at a resonance frequency, and the stress caused by applying the resonance frequency causes the ends and bases of the extensions to break away from the interfaces are in contact (see Naga’s [0124], FIG. 20), thus removing support structure 2000 from build piece 2005 and build plate 2001 (see Naga’s [0129]).
Regarding claim 29, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 are applicable to claim 28, wherein Naga discloses the layered fusing of a powdered build material to form the support structure (see Naga’s 2000 in FIG. 20) comprises:
providing a layer of the powdered build material via a powder supply (depositor for powder supply see Naga’s apparatus 101 in FIG. 1A) and fusing the powdered build material via a laser (see Naga’s 103 in FIG. 1A) or electron beam to form a failure zone layer (see Naga’s extension 2009 or 2011 in FIG. 20) of the support structure (see Naga’s 2000. FIG. 20) para [0038]) and wherein the layered fusing of the powdered build material to form the build piece comprises:
providing a layer of the powdered build material over the failure zone layer of the support structure via the powder supply apparatus and fusing the powdered build material via the laser or electron beam to form a build piece layer that is supported by the failure zone layer of the support structure (PBF (Powder-bed fusion) process and systems include additive manufacturing (AM) techniques to create build pieces layer-by-layer. Each layer or slice is formed by a process of depositing a layer of metal powder and then fusing ( e.g., melting and cooling) areas of the metal powder layer that coincide with the cross-section of the build piece in the layer (see Naga’s [0002]). The PBF process includes a depositor 101 to deposit each layer of metal powder, an energy beam source 103 that generate an energy beam, apply the energy beam to fuse the powder material, and a build plate 107 that can support one or more build pieces, such as a build piece 109 (see Naga’s [0054]). The support structure 2000 including resonant structures, of each upward extension 2009 and each downward extension 2011 is a resonant structure (see Naga’s FIG. 20), resonate at a resonance frequency, and the stress caused by applying the resonance frequency causes the ends and bases of the extensions to break away from the interfaces (see Naga’s [0123], [0124], FIG. 20), thus removing support structure 2000 from build piece 2005 and build plate 2001 (see Naga’s [0129]).
Regarding claim 33, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 are applicable to claim 33, wherein Naga’s process further comprising: resonating the support structure (support structure 2000 including resonant structures, each upward extension 2009 and each downward extension 2011 is a resonant structure, resonates at a resonance frequency. The stress caused by applying the resonance frequency can cause the ends and bases of the extensions to break away from the interfaces , thus removing support structure 2000 from build piece 2005 and build plate 2001) thus removing support structure 2000 from build piece 2005 and build plate 2001 (see Naga’s [0123], [0124], FIG. 20)), via a resonation device wherein resonating the support structure causes structural failure and separation of the support structure from the build piece at the failure zone (a vibrator 2200 applies a resonance frequency for removing support structures including resonant structures, build piece 2205 that have been removed. The induced vibration causes the support structure to vibrate with increasing amplitude until the ends break off from the build piece and the build plate (see Naga’s [0129], [0130], FIG. 22)).
Regarding claim 34, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 are applicable to claim 34, wherein Naga’s process further comprising: resonating at least the support structure (2000/2207) or the build piece (2005/2205) via a resonation device (2200), wherein resonating the at least the support structure (2000/2207) or build piece (2005/2205) causes separation of unfused powdered build material (deemed implicit due to loose powder and/or compact powder, different from the build piece (2005/2205), the multiple layers already deposited have created a powder bed 121, which includes powder that is deposited but not fused (see Naga’s [0055], FIG. 1A, 20, 22) the powder in a PBF system is supported by a powder material support structure (see Naga’s [0057] FIG. 1B). In some areas of powder layer 125, fusing occurs on top of loose powder- namely, over powder that is not fused - inadvertently or otherwise (see Naga’s (see Naga’s [0060). In order to mitigate or prevent deformations and other problems of overhang areas due to loose powder (see Naga’s [0060]-[0062]), applying pressure on the surface of the loose powder, so that loose powder is compacted, and compacted powder has a greater density than that of loose powder, that represents an improvement as a support mechanism for overhanging build pieces (see Naga’s [0065]). The support structure 2000 including resonant structures and each upward extension 2009 and each downward extension 2011 is a resonant structure, i.e., resonates at a resonance frequency. The stress caused by applying the resonance frequency causes the ends and bases of the extensions to break away from the interfaces, thus removing support structure (see Naga’s [0123], [0124], FIG. 20)). A vibrator 2200 applies a resonance frequency for removing support structures including resonant structures from the build piece 2205 as induced vibration can cause the support structure to vibrate with increasing amplitude until the ends break off from the build piece and the build plate (see Naga’s [0129], [0130], FIG. 22)).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 25-26, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eahab Nagi El Naga [US20180311732 A1] (provided in the IDS, Naga hereafter) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of Lin Li, et.al. [US20210122114A1] (Li, hereafter).
Regarding claim 25 and 30, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 and 29 are applicable to claim 25 and 30 respectively, wherein Naga discloses the failure zone can be formed by increasing or decreasing laser energy (The PBF process including DMLS, SLM, PBF fusing and sintering techniques may include partial melting, full melting (see Naga’s [0038]) and the PBF systems create build pieces layer-by-layer, i.e., slice-by-slice. Each slice can be formed by a process of depositing a layer of metal powder and fusing (e.g., melting and cooling) areas of the metal powder layer that coincide with the cross-section of the build piece in the slice. The process is repeated to form the next slice of the build piece (see Naga’s [0039]). PBF system 100 includes an energy beam source 103 to generate and to apply the energy beam to fuse the powder material (see Naga’s [0054])).
But Naga is silent about a volumetric energy density (VED) and fails to disclose the failure zone is formed by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) to introduce structural defects in the support structure at the failure zone, wherein the VED in joules/millimeters3 (J/mm3) is defined by the following equation: VED = E/(S x L x H), wherein E is a power of an energy source used to fuse the powdered build material, S is a scan speed of the energy source, L is a thickness of unfused powdered build material, and H is a hatch spacing of the energy source used to fuse the powdered build material.
However, Li discloses an additive manufacturing process with a laser (see Li’s Abstract, [0001], [0002]) specially an experiment is performed using lasers to perform LPBF additive manufacturing (Complex, fully dense metal parts, that is manufactured by Selective Laser Melting (SLM) based on additive manufacturing by layer-by-layer powder bed fusion, and powder deposition for additive manufacturing (see Li’s Abstract, [0001], [0002])). Li discloses support powdered material (SiC-316L material system) and building powdered material (316L powder), (see Li’s [0196]) and the support material, having low thermal expansion and high resistance to oxidation even at high temperatures, low ductility and irregularity shape of the powder particles (as seen in Li’s FIG. 1) can contribute to more stress concentrations in the support material leading to cavity erosion and subsequently failure. Thus SLM processing induced cracks are beneficial as these features are desirable for removing the support structures and for easy-to-removal supporting purpose, (see Li’s [0194]-[0196]).
Li then discloses the failure zone is formed by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) to introduce structural defects in the support structure at the failure zone, wherein the VED in joules/millimeters3 (J/mm3) is defined by the following equation (the processing of 3 sets of support material powder, (see Li’s [0196] and [0200]), the volume fraction of the support material powder (SiC powder) is 25%, 40%, 50% respectively and for aiming to produce a high porosity (structural defects) solid structure (see Li’s [0200])): VED = E/(S x L x H), wherein E is a power of an energy source used to fuse the powdered build material, S is a scan speed of the energy source, L is a thickness of unfused powdered build material, and H is a hatch spacing of the energy source used to fuse the powdered build material (Li’s laser energy density, Q, is calculated by the formula,
Q (VED) = P /(Vht), having units of J/mm3 wherein, P (E) is the laser power, V (S) is the scanning velocity, h (H) is the hatch distance and t (L) is the powder layer thickness (see Li’s [0184], [0200])).
Li further discloses to produce a high porosity solid structure, the energy density for the support material is relatively lower than the required laser energy density for selective laser melting of build components, which was normally around 100 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200]).
Li is in the same field of additive manufacturing for making a component and thus considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as well as Naga.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Li’s teachings to form the failure zone in Naga’s process, by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) to control structural defects (introducing porosity and controlling density) in the support structure at the failure zone, wherein the VED in joules/millimeters3 (J/mm3) as defined by Li, is being decreasing for aiming the higher porosity to introduce structural defects into the support material for easy removal of the support structures from the build piece.
Regarding claim 26, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 and 25 are applicable to claim 26, but Naga is silent the VED at the failure zone is 40-80 J/mm3.
However, Li discloses the example Q (VED) at the failure zone (support material) for the sample B1 to B4 and C1 to C4 are 60.71 to 77.78 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200], TABLE 9 and TABLE 9-continued).
Li’s VED is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a support structure from the teachings of Li that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 32, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 and 29-30 are applicable to claim 32, but Naga is silent the failure zone layer is formed with a VED of 20-40% lower than the build piece layer.
However, Li discloses the example Q (VED) at the failure zone (support material) for the sample B1 to B4 and C1 to C4 are 60.71 to 77.78 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200], TABLE 9 and TABLE 9-continued). Li further discloses to produce a high porosity solid structure, the energy density for the support material is relatively lower than the required laser energy density for selective laser melting of build components, which is around 100 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200]).
Therefore, as calculated from the above teachings of Li, Li’s failure zone layer is formed with a VED of 22.22 % [= (100 – 77.78)/100] to 39.29 % [= (100-60.71)/100] lower than the build piece layer, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a support structure from the teachings of Li that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Li’s teachings to form the failure zone in Naga’s process, by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) to control structural defects (introducing porosity and controlling density) in the support structure at the failure zone, wherein the VED is being lowering for aiming the higher porosity to introduce structural defects into the support material for easy removal of the support structures from the build piece.
Claim 26-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eahab Nagi El Naga [US20180311732 A1] (provided in the IDS, Naga hereafter) as applied to claim 24 and in view of Lin Li, et.al. [US20210122114A1] (Li, hereafter), as applied to claim 25 and 30 and further in view of Ali Eliasu, et.al. ["Effect of laser powder bed fusion parameters on the microstructural evolution and hardness of 316L stainless steel", The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2021) 113: 2651–2669] (Ali, hereafter).
Regarding claim 26, and 27, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 and 25 are applicable to claim 26 and 27, but Naga is silent about “the VED at the failure zone is 40-80 J/mm3 and/or 1-25 J/mm3”.
Li discloses VED and Li’s laser energy density, Q, is calculated by the formula, Q (VED) = P /(Vht), having units of J/mm3 wherein, P (E) is the laser power, V (S) is the scanning velocity, h (H) is the hatch distance and t (L) is the powder layer thickness (see Li’s [0184], [0200])). Li support powdered material (SiC-316L material system) and building powdered material (316L powder), (see Li’s [0196]) and induced cracks are beneficial as these features are desirable for removing the support structures and for easy-to-removal supporting purpose, (see Li’s [0194]-[0196]) and to produce a high porosity solid structure, for aiming to introducing defects in the support material. Li also discloses the required laser energy density for selective laser melting of build components, required is around 100 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200]). Li also discloses the example Q (VED) at the failure zone (support material) for the sample B1 to B4 and C1 to C4 are 60.71 to 77.78 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200], TABLE 9 and TABLE 9-continued), which is overlapping with claimed range of claim 26.
But Li is also silent about “the VED at the failure zone is 1-25 J/mm3”.
However, Ali teaches a method of additively manufacturing a build piece (the 3D printing machines that have adopted the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) technology for metal-AM, see Ali’s Title and Introduction) and parts are fabricated using variations of laser power, scanning speed, and hatch spacing in terms of volumetric energy density (VED) to understand the effect of processing parameters on the structure and properties of 316L stainless steel for observing the parts with good microstructural integrity and properties (hardness, porosity, and density). Also, VED is valuable when comparing the extent of consolidation and unfused/unmelted powders (porosity). The individual printing parameters offered a better understanding of the microstructure evolution, part density, and hardness of the material when compared with the VED and have significant effect on the morphology, size in subgrain structures. Melt track overlaps require low power while melt track offsets require high power to create parts with good qualities (density, porosity, and hardness). In addition, the hatch spacing dominates the scanning speed in determining part porosity while the scanning speed dominates the hatch spacing in determining part density (see Ali’s Abstract, and Introduction).
Ali teaches VED value (in J/mm3) for all samples, a proxy measure for the combined effects of the critical printing parameters, as follows: VED = P/ v X h X t, wherein , P (E) is the laser power, v (S) is the scanning speed, h (H) is the hatch spacing and t (L) is the layer thickness (see Ali’s Page 2653, 2654, Experimental, Equation (1), Table 2, 3, Fig. 1, and Fig.2). Ali teaches increasing the VED means that more energy is delivered to the metal powder, which causes sufficient melting and therefore results in more of the powder particles fusing. Figure 1 shows the micrographs of the printed samples illustrating the parameters, as also shown in Fig. 1. The printed sample with a VED of 20.41 J/mm3 had random pore distribution across the sample’s surface, as was observed for all the other samples with pores (see Ali’s Page 2654, 2655 Table 3, Fig. 1, and Fig.2).
With respect to claim 26, Ali’s VED as shown in Ali’s Table 3, and in Fig. 1 (see Ali’s Table 3, Fig. 1, and Fig.2) is overlapping with the range as recited in the instant claim.
With respect to claim 27, Ali’s VED to have maximum number of porosity with a VED of 20.41 J/mm3, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a support structure from the teachings of Ali that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Ali further teaches by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) porosity (structural defects) can be controlled as shown in Ali’s Table Ali teaches in Table 3, and Fig. 1, high level of porosity at 20.41 J/mm3 , low level of porosity 66.67 J/mm3, very low level of porosity at 111.11 J/mm3, and then again re-emergence of pores at 142.86 J/mm3 (see Ali’s Table 3, Fig. 1, and Fig.2).
Ali is in the same field of additive manufacturing for making a component and thus considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, and Naga as well as Li.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Ali’s teachings to form the failure zone in Naga’s process in view of Li, by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) to control structural defects (introducing porosity) in the support structure at the failure zone, as both increasing and decreasing would introduce higher porosity while an optimum level of dense structure without any porosity can be obtained and thus can control the structural defects into the support material of Naga in view of Li for easy removal of the support structures from the build piece.
Regarding claim 31, and 32, all the above discussions regarding claim 24 and 29-30 are applicable to claim 31 and 32, but Naga is silent about the failure zone layer is formed with a VED of 20-40% higher than the build piece layer and the failure zone layer is formed with a VED of 20-40% lower than the build piece layer.
However, Li discloses the example Q (VED) at the failure zone (support material) for the sample B1 to B4 and C1 to C4 are 60.71 to 77.78 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200], TABLE 9 and TABLE 9-continued). Li further discloses to produce a high porosity solid structure, the energy density for the support material is relatively lower than the required laser energy density for selective laser melting of build components, which is around 100 J/mm3 (see Li’s [0200]).
Therefore, as calculated from the above teachings of Li, Li’s failure zone layer is formed with a VED of 22.22 % [= (100 – 77.78)/100] to 39.29 % [= (100-60.71)/100] lower than the build piece layer, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim of 32.
But Li is silent about “the failure zone layer is formed with a VED of 20-40% higher than the build piece layer” as recited in the claim 31.
However, Ali teaches VED value (in J/mm3) for all samples, a proxy measure for the combined effects of the critical printing parameters, as follows: VED = P/ v X h X t, wherein , P (E) is the laser power, v (S) is the scanning speed, h (H) is the hatch spacing and t (L) is the layer thickness (see Ali’s Page 2653, 2654, Experimental, Equation (1), Table 2, 3, Fig. 1, and Fig.2) and according to Ali, increasing the VED means that more energy is delivered to the metal powder, which causes sufficient melting and therefore results in more of the powder particles fusing. Ali’s Table 3 and Fig. 1 shows the micrographs of the printed samples illustrating the parameters, and the printed sample with a VED of 20.41 J/mm3 had random pore distribution across the sample’s surface, as was observed for all the other samples with pores (see Ali’s Page 2654, 2655 Table 3, Fig. 1, and Fig.2).
Ali further teaches by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) porosity (structural defects) can be controlled as shown in Ali’s Table Ali teaches in Table 3, and Fig. 1, high level of porosity at 20.41 J/mm3 , low level of porosity 79.37 J/mm3, very low level of porosity at 111.11 J/mm3, and then again re-emergence of pores at 142.86 J/mm3 (see Ali’s Table 3, Fig. 1, and Fig.2).
With respect to claim 31, the calculated percentage of VED, from the above teachings of Ali, Ali’s failure zone layer is formed with a VED of “28.57 %” [= ((142.86-111.11)/111.11) * 100], i.e. 28.57 higher than the build piece layer, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim of 31.
With respect to claim 32, the calculated percentage of VED, from the above teachings of Ali, Ali’s failure zone layer can be formed with a VED of 25.00 % [= ((111.11– 83.33/111.11) * 100] to 81.6 % [= ((111.11– 20.41)/111.11) * 100] lower than the build piece layer of 111.11 J/mm3 having a very low level porosity, which is overlapping with the range as recited in the instant claim of 32
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a support structure from the teachings of Ali that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Ali’s teachings to form the failure zone in Naga’s process in view of Li, by increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) percentage higher or lower than the build piece to control structural defects (introducing porosity) in the support structure at the failure zone, as both increasing and decreasing would introduce higher porosity while an optimum level of dense structure without any porosity can be obtained and thus can control the structural defects into the support material of Naga in view of Li for easy removal of the support structures from the build piece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
William O'Neill, et.al. [US20220032368A1] (O'Neill, hereafter) disclose an additive manufacturing process with a laser (see O'Neill’s Abstract, [0001]) specially an experiment is performed using lasers to perform LPBF additive manufacturing (see O'Neill’s Abstract, [0059]). O'Neill discloses the optimization of laser power based upon increasing or decreasing a volumetric energy density (VED) to introduce structural defects in the support structure at the failure zone, wherein the VED in joules/millimeters3 (J/mm3) is defined by the following equation (the VED is calculated to determine the different operating characteristics of the lasers, and the VED and melt rate (MR) are inversely related. The VED can be represented as shown below (see O'Neill’s [0064])): O'Neill’s VED is calculated to determine the different operating characteristics of the lasers, VED = P /(v * h * t) (1), having units of J/mm3 wherein, P (E) = laser power, v (S) is the scan speed (mm/hour), and t is the powder layer thickness (mm) and h is the hatch spacing (see O'Neill’s equation (1) and [0064])). O'Neill further discloses as can be seen, in the above equations, (i) increasing the laser power increases the VED and (ii) increasing the scan speed, the hatch spacing or the layer thickness decreases the VED . As such , if it is desired to increase the melt rate , then the power can be increased , and the VED can be decreased by increasing t , v , or h .. ", (see O'Neill’s [0064]), density, pore size etc. and various parameters, can be controlled by controlling the generation of the laser spots for example, parameters such as power, feed rate, and hatch distance can be varied as desired or needed, such as for the particular application (see O'Neill’s [0071]).
Dominik Maurer, et.al. [US20200269352A1] (Maurer, hereafter) discloses methods and systems for generative manufacturing of a three-dimensional component from a powder, wherein a layer structure model of the component to be manufactured is divided into a core region and a shell region adjacent to the core region, and wherein the shell region forms at least a portion of the surface of the three-dimensional component. Then, a layer-based irradiation process is performed in which a density of irradiated powder layers is lower in the shell region than in the core region (see Maurer’s Abstract) and a density of irradiated powder layers results in a volume energy (in [J/m3]) (introduced into the powder by the irradiation), which is essentially given by volume energy = laser power/(layer thickness*scanning speed*track distance) (see Maurer’s [0039]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights