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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/11/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these "four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.03. System is not one of the four statutory classifications. None the less, applicants are free to write patent claims as system claims and have done so over 200 years. System claims must be interpreted by the Examiner or the courts as one of the four statutory classifications for patents on a case by case basis. Generally, system claims are either process (method) or machine (apparatus) claims. For a history of how the Supreme Court has handled system claims, see Cole, section V, history of system claims, NTP v. RIM: The Diverging Law Between System and Method Claim Infringement, Pierce Law Review, Vol. 5, No.2 pp. 347-365, 2007. In this case, claim 1 recites machine (apparatus) limitations, and thus claim 1 and its dependent claims will be interpreted as machine (apparatus) claims.
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.
Claims 2-3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the stirring effect". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the stirring effect". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the stirring effect". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (US 20210001400 A1), in view of Garandet et al. (WO 2020089548 A1), as machine translated.
Regarding claim 1, Ren teaches that “a laser-solid-forming manufacturing device comprises a laser emitter, a magnetic field generator, and a forming platform” (paragraph [0009]). Ren teaches “a laser-solid-forming manufacturing device and method, so as to improve the surface finish of a laser-solid-forming metal component” (which reads upon “a production system (1) comprising: at least one device (2) that enables application of the metal additive manufacturing production method and the welding process, at least one part (P) formed by melting the raw material (H) on the table (5) by use of the heat source (4) and by creating a molten pool (K) for processing the same”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]; component reads on part). Ren teaches “uniformly feeding the feedstock to the forming platform” (which reads upon “at least one raw material (H) suitable for use in the metal additive manufacturing production method; at least one feeder (3) on the device (2), which enables deposition of the raw material (H), at least one table (5) that allows the raw material (H) to be processed thereon”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0039]). Ren teaches “controlling the laser emitter to emit the laser beam which acts on the feedstock according to the preset path such that the feedstock at the relative position is molten to form the molten pool” (which reads upon “at least one heat source (4) on the device (2), which enables the raw material (H) provided by the feeder (3) to be melted, a molten pool (K) formed by the raw material (H) melted on the table (5) by use of the heat source (4)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). Ren teaches that “the magnetic field generator comprises a spiral copper coil, the first electrode, and the second electrode” (which reads upon “magnetic generator[] (6) on the device (2), which provide improvement in micro and/or macro structure of the part (P) by applying a magnetic field on the part (P), wherein the [] magnetic generator[] (6) [is] on the table (5),”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]; see also FIG. 1). Ren teaches “regulating the horizontal position of the spiral copper coil and the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil and the forming platform such that the feedstock is located in the magnetic field” (which reads upon “wherein the magnetic generators (6) have the molten pool (K) in between, thus creating a magnetic field on the molten pool (K)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0041]). Ren teaches that “the magnetic field and the molten metal of the molten pool 3 mutually act to generate the Lorentz force having the direction opposite to the flowing direction of the molten metal” (paragraph [0101]). Ren teaches that “the molten pool 3 changes the flowing and generates center shrinkage, and that the surface finish of the laser-solid-forming metal component is largely improved” (which reads upon “which provide improvement in micro and/or macro structure of the part (P) by applying a magnetic field on the part (P)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0101]). The limitations which provide improvement in micro and/or macro structure of the part (P) and improving mechanical and metallurgical properties of the part (P) are interpreted as functional language and/or intended use, and are therefore not given patentable weight. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Ren teaches that “the magnetic field generator comprises a spiral copper coil, the first electrode, and the second electrode” (paragraph [0012]). Ren is silent regarding a plurality of magnetic generators, one coaxial and opposite to the other. Ren teaches that “a person of ordinary skill in the art can make various modifications in terms of specific embodiments and scope of application in accordance with the teachings of the present invention” (paragraph [0104]).
Garandet is similarly concerned with an additive manufacturing device for at least one part in the process of being manufactured, means for supplying the material on a support, at least one energy source for melting the material and means for generating a time-independent magnetic field at least at the level of the melting zone of the material (paragraph [0010]). Garandet teaches that “the means of generating a magnetic field are such that the magnetic field has rotational symmetry with respect to an axis normal to the surface of the molten material bath and which passes through the center of the heat supply zone” (paragraph [0012]). Garandet teaches that “the means of generating a magnetic field include, for example, at least one permanent magnet and/or one or more electromagnets” (which reads upon “a plurality of magnetic generators”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0015]). Garandet teaches that “the two elements 208.1 and 208.2 can be in direct contact with the support plate” (which reads upon “a plurality of magnetic generators (6) on the device (2), wherein the plurality of magnetic generators (6) are on the table (5)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0112]). Garandet teaches that “the generation means 308 include a plurality of permanent magnets made of ferromagnetic material arranged under the support platform 310 and covering the entire surface opposite the manufacturing platform 302” (which reads upon “one coaxial and opposite to the other”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0117] and FIG. 5). Garandet teaches that “the means for supplying the material may include a nozzle for supplying powdered material or a wire feeding system, and the supply means, the power source, and the means for generating a permanent magnetic field are coaxial” (which reads upon “coaxial”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0030]). Garandet teaches that “the means of generating a magnetic field include, for example, at least one permanent magnet and/or one or more electromagnets” (paragraph [0015]). Garandet teaches that “in this example, the electromagnet is a coil” (paragraph [0121]). Garandet teaches that “the use of permanent magnets simplifies the device, as no electrical connection is required, which is particularly advantageous when the means of generating the magnetic field are mobile” (paragraph [0080]). Garandet teaches that “in the examples in figures 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B and 4, the electromagnets could be replaced by one or more magnets” (paragraph [0137]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coil of Ren with magnets, as taught by Garandet to simplify the device, as no electrical connection is required, which is particularly advantageous when the means of generating the magnetic field are mobile. The substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Garandet et al. is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one means of generating a magnetic field for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). However, here Garandet does suggest that magnets may replace electromagnets (coils) in a DED configuration. See FIG. 2A, paragraphs [0092] and [0137]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “according to the position change of the metal molten pool 3, the regulator regulates the spiral copper coil 2 to respectively move in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction; the rotating disc 7 is used for regulating the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil 2 and the forming platform 5” (paragraph [0084]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that actuators actuate movement; the regulator reads on a trigger). Ren is silent regarding improve mechanical properties of the part (P) with the stirring effect by creating a variable magnetic field on the molten pool (K), and enable continuous stirring effect regardless of the position of each other and position of the table (5). Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus (stirring effect, creating a variable magnetic field on the molten pool), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (molten pool) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations (enable continuous stirring effect) do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Additionally, a whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. Here, the intended result, improve mechanical properties of the part, of the intended manner of operating the disclosed device, is not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See MPEP 2111.04 I.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 2 as stated above. Ren teaches that “according to the position change of the metal molten pool 3, the regulator regulates the spiral copper coil 2 to respectively move in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction; the rotating disc 7 is used for regulating the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil 2 and the forming platform 5” (paragraph [0084]). Garandet teaches that “the means of generating the magnetic field are mobile” (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “the regulator is connected with the spiral copper coil 2 and is used for regulating the horizontal position of the spiral copper coil 2 and the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil 2 and the forming platform 5” (paragraph [0065]). Ren teaches that “according to the position change of the metal molten pool 3, the regulator regulates the spiral copper coil 2 to respectively move in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction; the rotating disc 7 is used for regulating the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil 2 and the forming platform 5; thus, the metal molten pool 3 is always located at the position having the same magnetic field strength” (paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “according to the position change of the metal molten pool 3, the regulator regulates the spiral copper coil 2 to respectively move in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction; the rotating disc 7 is used for regulating the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil 2 and the forming platform 5; thus, the metal molten pool 3 is always located at the position having the same magnetic field strength” (paragraph [0084]). Garandet teaches that “the device then advantageously includes a control unit configured to control the power supply of the electromagnet so as to maintain a constant intensity of the magnetic field in the melted zone” (paragraph [0028]). Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus (the winding directions of the magnetic generators (6) to be constant, regardless of the movement of the table), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (molten pool) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 7, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 5 as stated above. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus (position of one magnetic generator (6) relative to another magnetic generator (6) to be adjusted as predetermined by the user), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (molten pool) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 8, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 5 as stated above. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (molten pool) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 9, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “according to the position change of the metal molten pool 3, the regulator regulates the spiral copper coil 2 to respectively move in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction; the rotating disc 7 is used for regulating the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil 2 and the forming platform 5” (paragraph [0084]). Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (molten pool) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 10, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Garandet teaches that “the generation means 308 include a plurality of permanent magnets made of ferromagnetic material arranged under the support platform 310 and covering the entire surface opposite the manufacturing platform 302” (paragraph [0117] and FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “according to the position change of the metal molten pool 3, the regulator regulates the spiral copper coil 2 to respectively move in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction; the rotating disc 7 is used for regulating the intersection angle between the spiral copper coil 2 and the forming platform 5; thus, the metal molten pool 3 is always located at the position having the same magnetic field strength” (paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ren teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “laser solid forming technology is to melt metal powders or wires by utilizing the high-energy laser beam as the heat source and then quickly cool and solidify the molten metal to be formed on the substrate” (paragraph [0003]; laser solid forming reads on directed energy deposition). Ren teaches that “the computer software firstly layers and slices the three-dimensional model of a component, namely converting the three-dimensional shape information of the component into a series of two-dimensional outline information, then, the information of each layer is utilized as the path to be scanned by the high-energy laser beam” (paragraph [0003]). Ren teaches that “finally, a real metal component having the same geometrical size as the designed component is formed by stacking the deposited materials layer by layer” (paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Withers et al. (US 20090047439 A1). Withers teaches that “the substrate may be placed into a magnetic or electromagnet field for achieving a higher porosity or more uniform macro and micro-structure” (paragraph [0094]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if any 112 rejections are resolved.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights